HOT  A PERIODICAL 


OF  THE 


U N I V ER_S  ITY 
OF  ILLINOIS 


cop . 2 


MOT  A PERIODICAL 


UNIVERSITY  OF 
ILLINOIS  LIBRARY 
AT  URBANA-CHAMPAIGN 

BOOKSTACKS 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 
in  2017  with  funding  from 

University  of  Illinois  Urbana-Champaign  Alternates 


https://archive.org/details/danielraymondearOOneil 


VI 


DANIEL  RAYMOND 


An  Early  Chapter  in  the  History  of  Economic  Theory 
in  the  United  States. 


JOHNS  HOPKINS  UNIVERSITY  STUDIES 

IN 

Historical  and  Political  Science 

HERBERT  B.  ADAMS,  Editor 


History  is  past  Politics  and  Politics  are  present  History.— Freeman. 


FIFTEENTH  SERIES 
VI 

DANIEL  RAYMOND 

An  Early  Chapter  in  the  History  of  Economic  Theory 
in  the  United  States 


By  Charles  Patrick  Neill,  A.  M. 

Instructor  in  Economics  in  the  Catholic  University  of  America. 


BALTIMORE 

The  Johns  Hopkins  Press 


PUBLISHED  MONTHLY 

June, 1897 


Copyright,  1897,  by  the  Johns  Hopkins  Press. 


GUGGENHEIMER,  WEIL  & CO.,  PRINTERS, 
BALTIMORE. 


3 JO.  7 

A i3irj 


TABLE  OF  CONTENTS. 

Chap.  Page. 

Introduction 7 

I.  Early  Economic  Thought  in  the  United  States  . . 9 

II.  Daniel  Raymond  and  His  Work— 

I.  Life  and  Work 14 

II.  Outline  of  his  system 28 

III.  Genesis  of  Raymond’s  System— 

I.  Influence  of  environment. 39 

II.  Lauderdale  and  Raymond  42 

IV.  Daniel  Raymond  and  Friederich  List 46 


DANIEL  RAYMOND 

AN  EARLY  CHAPTER  IN  THE  HISTORY  OF 
ECONOMIC  THEORY  IN  THE 
UNITED  STATES. 


INTRODUCTION. 

The  net  result  of  a study  of  the  history  of  economic  science 
in  the  United  States  during  the  first  century  of  our  national 
existence  has  been  summed  up  thus: 

“Not  only  has  no  American  school  of  writers  on  political 
economy  been  established,  if  we  except  that  which  we  are 
about  to  notice  (Henry  C.  Carey  and  his  several  disciples), 
but  no  recognized  contribution  to  the  development  of  the 
science  can  be  pointed  out  in  any  way  comparable  to  those 
made  by  the  French  writers,  or  to  those  which  the  Germans 
are  now  making.”1 

“The  general  result  then  to  which,  as  we  believe,  a sober 
examination  of  the  case  must  lead  any  candid  inquirer,  is 
that  the  United  States  have,  thus  far,  done  nothing  towards 
developing  the  theory  of  political  economy,  notwithstanding 
their  vast  and  immediate  interest  in  its  practical  applica- 
tions.”2 

Despite  this  foreshadowing  of  negative  results,  the  pres- 
ent study  was  begun  in  the  belief  that  a further  investigation 
into  the  history  of  economic  science  in  the  United  States 
would  not  be  without  scientific  interest.  Had  this  country 
produced  no  economic  writers  at  all,  the  causes  of  such 
barrenness  would  have  invited  inquiry ; and  if  we  have  pro- 
duced writers,  and  these  have  been  without  influence  on  the 
development  of  the  science,  the  why  of  this  is  also  worthy 
of  study. 

The  results  of  the  present  study  would  seem  to  indicate  that 
perhaps  American  writers  have  exerted  an  influence  upon 

1North  American  Review,  January  1876,  p.  137.  Dunbar,  Eco- 
nomic Science  in  the  United  States,  1776-1876. 

2 Ibid. , p.  140. 


8 Introduction . [218 

the  development  of  the  science  to  an  extent  that  has  not  here- 
tofore been  conceded. 

The  general  history  of  economic  science  has  been 
divided  into  the  fragmentary  period,  in  which  isolated 
discussions  of  economic  topics  are  found  scattered 
about  in  the  writings  of  thinkers  in  other  fields;  the  period 
of  monographs  and  empirical  systems;  the  constructive 
period,  in  which  systematic  treatises  appear,  essaying  the 
presentation  of  a complete  science;  and  the  critical  or  ana- 
lytical period.1  Although  the  appearance  of  the  United 
States  in  the  family  of  nations  was  subsequent  to  the  begin- 
ning of  this  third  period — or,  perhaps,  coincident  with  it — 
the  history  of  the  development  of  the  science  here,  or  rather 
of  its  development  at  the  hands  of  American  writers,  repro- 
duces the  phases  marked  in  its  general  history. 

The  year  1820  may  be  said  to  have  ushered  in  the  third 
period  in  the  United  States,2  with  the  publication  of  a treatise 
on  political  economy  from  the  pen  of  Daniel  Raymond,  of 
the  Baltimore  bar;  and  it  is  of  this  writer  and  his  work  that 
the  present  monograph  purposes  to  treat. 

The  importance  of  Raymond’s  work  is  not  alone  in  that  it 
is  the  first  systematic  treatise  on  economics  from  the  pen  of 
an  American,  but  also  in  that  it  shows  the  influence  of  Amer- 
ican conditions,  and  in  consequence  presents  a theory  of 
political  economy  opposed  at  all  points  to  the  prevailing 
system  as  developed  by  the  dominant  school  of  Adam  Smith. 

Before  dealing  with  the  work  of  Raymond,  it  may  not  be 
amiss  to  sketch  in  brief  the  condition  of  economic  thought 
in  this  country  during  the  period  preceding  his  appearance 
as  an  economist. 

iCossa,  Introduction  to  Study  of  Political  Economy. 

2“Down  to  the  year  1820  no  American  produced  any  treatise  on 
political  economy  which  the  world  has  cared  to  remember.”  N. 
A.  Rev.,  January,  1876,  p.  134. 

“There  is  no  American  treatise  on  the  subject, . The  only 

American  book  that  has  the  semblance  of  a treatise  on  political 
economy  is  Hamilton’s  reports  as  Secretary  of  the  Treasury.”  Ray- 
mond, 1st  ed.  (1820),  p.  5. 


CHAPTER  I. 


Early  Economic  Thought  in  the  United  States. 

In  a new  country,  as  was  the  United  States  of  a century 
ago,  with  meager  facilities  for  education — and  that  educa- 
tion dominated  largely  by  the  classics — with  crude  social 
conditions,  and,  in  consequence,  little  leisure  or  inclination 
on  the  part  of  the  people  for  abstract  study  or  speculative 
thought,  one  does  not  expect  to  find  any  extensive  knowl- 
edge of  the  principles  of  the  new  science  of  economics,  or 
any  very  profound  interest  taken  in  its  study.  If  this  knowl- 
edge or  interest  were  to  be  looked  for  anywhere,  it  would  be 
amongst  the  statesmen  of  the  day;  for  politics  had  very 
largely  absorbed  the  best  intelligence  of  the  time,  the  up- 
building on  permanent  lines  of  the  new  political  structure 
demanded  attention  to  basic  principles  and  not  shifting  ex- 
pedients, and  the  most  important  and  most  fiercely  contested 
political  issues  of  the  day  were  distinctively  economic.  But 
even  the  architects  of  our  political  and  industrial  system  do 
not  seem  to  have  depended  much  on  the  light  that  a study 
of  the  rising  science  might  have  afforded  them,  nor  do  they 
seem  to  have  been  much  influenced  by  arguments  drawn 
from  it. 

Franklin  had  indeed  in  his  speculations  discussed  numer- 
ous economic  topics,  and  by  some  of  his  reviewers  he  has 
been  reconstructed  into  an  economist  worthy  of  his  time;1 


1Wetzel,  Benjamin  Franklin  as  an  Economist,  J.  H.  U.  Studies. 


10 


Early  Economic  Thought  in  the  XJ.  S.  [220 


but  a less  admiring  critic  has  given  the  weight  of  his  author- 
ity to  the  proposition  that  Franklin  “not  only  did  not  ad- 
vance the  growth  of  economic  science,  but  he  seems  not 
even  to  have  mastered  it  as  it  was  already  developed.”1 
From  Franklin  to  Alexander  Hamilton  no  public  man  seems 
to  have  displayed  any  grasp  of  economic  principles  suffi- 
cient to  have  made  him  worthy  of  note  on  that  account.2 
Hamilton  in  this  respect  stands  out  in  bold  relief  amongst 
his  fellows,  and  yet  his  mastery  of  the  best  economic  thought 
of  his  day,  and  his  skill  in  expounding  and  applying  its  prin- 
ciples, does  not  seem  to  have  enabled  him  to  win  over  ready 
assent  to  his  measures.  His  plan  for  a national  bank  as  a 
fiscal  aid  to  the  government  and  a regulator  of  the  currency 
was  made  possible  rather  through  a “deal”  of  the  sort  termed 
“practical  politics,”  than  as  a result  of  economic  thinking; 
and  his  protective  measures  only  became  a national  policy 
long  years  after  his  report  on  manufactures,  and  then  only 
as  the  result  of  new  developments,  and  not  in  direct  conse- 
quence of  his  writings.  The  political  rather  than  the  eco- 
nomic bearing  of  measures  was  the  influence  that  deter- 
mined legislation.  Were  they  centralizing  or  decentraliz- 
ing?— this  was  the  aspect  that  appealed  to  the  men  who  were 
fashioning  the  new  republic.  With  their  minds  haunted  by 
this  all  important  question,  they  were  little  likely  to  be  in- 
fluenced by  the  principles  of  Adam  Smith’s  new  science. 
It  might  be  useful  as  lending  added  support  to  theories  al- 
ready accepted  on  other  grounds ; but  it  would  scarcely  win 
assent  to  its  principles  from  those  to  whose  minds  political 
considerations  had  already  given  an  opposite  trend. 

The  study  of  economic  science  made  headway  slowly  at 
first.  An  American  edition  of  Adam  Smith  had  made  its 
appearance  at  Philadelphia  as  early  as  1789.3  Two  decades 
seem  to  have  elapsed  before  there  was  a growth  of  interest  in 

1Prof.  Dunbar  in  N.  A.  Rev.,  January,  1876,  p.  130. 

2 Ibid.,  p.  13 1. 

3Catalogue  of  Baltimore  Athenaeum  Library,  1827. 


11 


221]  Early  Economic  Thought  in  the  U.  S. 

the  science  sufficient  to  warrant  another  edition.  A second 
reprint  appeared  from  Hartford  in  1811,  and  a third  from  the 
same  place  in  1818.  Interest  seems  to  have  been  awakening 
about  this  time,  for  in  1819,  only  two  years  after  its  appear- 
ance in  England,  Ricardo’s  “Principles”  was  reprinted  at 
Georgetown,  and  a translation  of  Say  appeared  from  the 
same  place  in  1821,  and  was  quickly  followed  by  a second 
edition.1  Cossa  implies2  that  these  reprints  were  partly,  if 
not  largely,  for  use  in  the  schools,  but  at  this  time  political 
economy  had  found  place  in  college  curricula  only  in  a few 
instances,  and  not  by  any  means  to  an  extent  to  have  called 
for  such  a multiplication  of  text  books.  It  is  more  likely 
that  the  rising  sentiment  for  a protective  system  was  attract- 
ing interest  to  economic  principles,  and  that  the  advocates 
of  free  trade  were  becoming  zealous  not  only  in  the  study 
of  their  master,  but  also  in  placing  within  easy  reach  of  their 
dissenting  brethren  authentic  copies  of  the  creed  of  true 
believers.3 

Jefferson,  who  had  been  exposed  to  the  infection  in 
France,  was  very  much  interested  in  the  science  of  political 
economy,  and  very  earnestly  bent  on  stimulating  the  study 
of  it  among  his  fellow-citizens.  Through  his  efforts  “A 
Treatise  on  Political  Economy,”  by  “Count  Destutt  Tracy, 
member  of  the  Senate  and  Institute  of  France,  and  of  the 
American  Philosophical  Society,”  was  translated  from  the 
original  French  manuscript,  and  published  at  Georgetown 
in  1817.  Jefferson  regarded  this  author  as  “the  ablest  writer 
living  on  intellectual  subjects;”  and  when  the  book  issued 
from  the  press,  it  was  prefaced  by  a letter  from  Jefferson,  in 
which  he  indulges  the  hope  that  its  merits  will  win  for  it  a 
“place  in  the  hands  of  every  reader  in  our  country,”  and 

1Carey,  Biographical  Sketches,  p.  9. 

introduction  to  the  Study  of  Political  Economy,  p.  466. 

3In  marked  contrast  to  the  inactivity  of  their  opponents,  the  free 
traders  were  at  this  time  active  propagandists.  Cf.  Mathew  Carey, 
Biographical  Sketches. 


12 


Early  Economic  Thought  in  the  U.  S . [222 


says  that  it  is  his  “hearty  prayer”  that  it  may  be  made  the 
elementary  book  of  instruction  in  the  science.1 

After  its  publication,  John  Adams  wrote  of  this  book: 
“Upon  the  subject  of  political  economy  at  large,  I know  of 
nothing  better.”2  Yet  notwithstanding  that  the  work  could 
elicit  such  high  praise,  Jefferson  had  been  for  five  years 
trying  to  secure  a publisher  for  it  before  his  efforts  bore 
fruit.3  The  book  dealt  with  abstract  principles,  and  was 
metaphysical ; it  was  consequently  of  little  avail  as  a weapon 
for  political  strife;  and  it  was  this  latter  aspect  of  a work  on 
political  economy  that  determined  its  popularity. 

Jefferson’s  efforts  to  spread  a knowledge  of  economic  prin- 
ciples among  his  compeers  were  not,  on  the  whole,  encour- 
aging; and  from  some  of  his  letters  we  may  glean  his  opinion 
of  the  condition  of  the  science  in  this  country  in  his  day.4 

1It  was  originally  intended  that  this  work  should  be  first  pub- 
lished in  this  country,  on  account  of  the  author’s  fear  of  incurring 
the  displeasure  of  Napoleon  should  it  come  to  his  notice.  Though 
Jefferson  arranged  for  its  publication  here,  his  name  was  not  to  be 
publicly  connected  with  the  work,  as  the  author  was  prepared  to 
deny  its  authenticity,  in  case  it  should  come  to  the  notice  of  Na- 
poleon. But  before  a publisher  could  be  secured  here,  Napoleon 
had  been  deposed,  and  the  work  appeared  in  France  before  it  is- 
sued from  the  press  here.  Jefferson’s  Works,  edited  by  H.  A.  Wash- 
ington, Vol.  VI.,  p.  568;  Vol.  VII.,  p.  39. 

2A’s  works,  Vol.  X.,  p.  385. 

3J’s  works,  Vols.  VI.-VII. 

4To  Dupont  de  Nemours,  Feb.  28,  1815: 

“With  sufficient  means  in  the  hands  of  our  citizens,  and  sufficient 
will  to  bestow  them  on  the  government,  we  are  floundering  in  ex- 
pedients equally  unproductive  and  ruinous;  and  proving  how  little 
are  understood  here  those  sound  principles  of  political  economy 
first  developed  by  the  economists,  since  commented  and  dilated  by 
Smith,  Say,  yourself,  and  the  luminous  reviewer  of  Montesquieu. 
I have  been  endeavoring  to  get  the  able  paper  on  the  subject,  which 
you  addressed  to  me  July,  1810,  and  enlarged  in  a copy  received  the 
last  year,  translated  and  printed  here  in  order  to  draw  the  attention 
of  our  citizens  to  the  subject;  but  have  not  as  yet  succeeded.  Our 
printers  are  enterprising  only  in  novels  and  light  rea.ding.  The 
readers  of  works  of  science,  although  in  considerable  numbers,  are 
so  sparse  in  their  situations,  that  such  works  are  of  slow  circulation. 
But  I shall  persevere.”  Ibid.,  Vol.  VI.,  p.  429. 


13 


223]  Early  Economic  Thought  in  the  U.  S. 

During  the  first  thirty  years,  then,  of  our  national  exist- 
ence little  attention  seems  to  have  been  bestowed  upon  the 
study  of  economic  science.  An  interest  in  it  begins  to  show 
itself  in  the  closing  years  of  the  first  quarter  of  the  present 
century.  The  philosophy  of  that  day  had  everywhere  taken 
for  its  shibboleth  “Liberty,  Freedom;”  and  in  a country  such 
as  ours,  which  had  so  recently  freed  itself — after  much  sacri- 
fice— from  being  too  much  and  too  capriciously  governed, 
which  had,  within  the  memory  of  citizens  not  yet  old,  been 
regarded  merely  as  territory  to  be  exploited  as  best  suited 
the  interests  of  the  classes  controlling  the  “home  govern- 
ment,” it  was  only  natural  that  the  philosophy  of  individual- 
ism should  find  a congenial  soil,  and  that  the  colonists,  be- 
come citizens,  should  look  askance  at  government,  watch 
with  jealous  eye  its  every  expansion  of  function,  plan  to 
hedge  it  about  with  restraints,  and  take  kindly  to  the  doc- 
trine of  laissez  faire.  Accordingly,  then,  when  an  interest 
in  economic  science  begins  to  awaken  here,  there  is  a pre- 
disposition to  accept  the  system  of  Adam  Smith,  to  cling  to 
it  as  the  teaching  of  wisdom,  and  to  erect  it  into  the  creed 
of  orthodoxy.  Such  was  the  status  of  economic  science  in 
the  United  States  when  the  first  American  treatise  on  the 
subject  appeared. 


To  Dupont,  May  15,  1815: 

“The  newspapers  tell  us  that  you  are  arrived  in  the  United  States. 
You  will  now  be  a witness  to  our  deplorable  igno- 
rance in  finance  and  political  economy  generally.  I mentioned  in  my 
letter  of  February  that  I was  endeavoring  to  get  your  memoir  on 
that  subject  printed.  I have  not  yet  succeeded.”  Vol  VI.,  p.  458. 
To  M.  Carrea  de  Serra,  Dec.  27,  1814: 

“I  have  received  a letter  from  Mr.  Say,  in  which  he  expresses  a 

thought  of  removing  to  this  country Mr.  Say  will  be 

surprised  to  find,  that  forty  years  after  the  development  of  sound 
financial  principles  by  Adam  Smith  and  the  economists,  and  a dozen 
years  after  he  has  given  them  to  us  in  a corrected,  dense,  and  lucid 
form,  there  should  be  so  much  ignorance  of  them  in  our  country; 
that  ...  we  are  trusting  to  tricks  of  jugglers  on  the  cards,  to 
the  illusions  of  banking  schemes  for  the  resources  of  the  war,  and 
for  the  cure  of  colic  to  the  inflation  of  more  wind.”  Vol.  VI.,  p.  406. 


CHAPTER  II. 


Daniel  Raymond  and  His  Work. 

Daniel  Raymond  (1786-1849)  was  a native  of  Connecticut 
He  prepared  himself  for  the  bar  in  the  law  school  of  Tapping 
Reeve,  at  Litchfield,  Conn.,1  and  in  1814  appears  as  a mem- 
ber of  the  bar  of  Baltimore.2  He  had  brought  with  him  to 
the  land  of  his  adoption  the  New  England  hatred  of  its  pe- 
culiar institution,  and  in  1819  he  came  before  the  public  in  a 
pamphlet  on  the  “Missouri  Question.” 

In  1820  he  essayed  a more  ambitious  role,  and  gave  to  the 
public  his  “Thoughts  on  Political  Economy”  (Vol.  I.,  pp. 
470).  This  was  the  first  systematic  treatise  on  the  subject 
to  be  written  by  an  American,3  and  it  may  not  be  without 
interest  to  know  what  led  to  his  taking  up  the  subject.  Ray- 
mond’s own  explanation  is  frank,  and  sufficiently  modest. 
The  public  permitted  him  many  moments  of  leisure  in  his 
profession;  poring  over  “musty  law  books”  had  grown  a 
weariness  of  the  flesh;  idleness  too  was  irksome;  and  for 
mere  diversion  he  set  about  putting  on  paper  his  thoughts 
on  political  economy.4  As  he  wrote  his  subject  developed 


1Federal  Gazette  and  Balto.  Daily  Advertiser,  Dec.  26,  1823. 

2Records  of  the  Superior  Court,  Baltimore. 

3Supra,  p.  2. 

4“The  following  sheets  were  written  to  please  myself — my  princi- 
pal object  in  writing  them,  was  employment.  The  public  has  not 
seen  fit  to  give  me  constant  employment  in  my  profession,  other- 
wise this  book  had  never  been  written.  I had  read  musty  law  books 
till  I was  tired.  Idleness  was  irksome,  and  I sought  relief  in  put- 
ting on  paper  some  of  my  thoughts  on  political  economy.  If  the 
public  shall  think  this  a sufficient  justification  for  writing  a book, 
it  is  well;  if  not,  I cannot  help  it.  I have  no  other  to  offer. 

“As  to  my  inducement  for  publishing  it,  I know  not  what  to  say. 

The  best  excuse  I can  allege  for  publishing  is,  that  it 

pleased  me  so  to  do,  and  one  feels  a sort  of  satisfaction  in  doing  as 
he  pleases,  without  consulting  any  one.”  Preface  to  1st  ed.  p.  1. 


225] 


Daniel  Raymond  and  His  Work. 


15 


in  his  mind  beyond  anticipated  proportions;1  and  then,  to 
please  his  whim,  he  put  his  notes  into  the  hands  of  the 
printer.  He  styles  his  book  “Thoughts  on  Political  Econ- 
omy;” he  does  not  send  it  out  as  a “general  treatise  on  polit- 
ical economy;”  he  modestly  professes  his  inability  to  write 
such  a treatise;  and  the  only  merit  to  which  he  lays  claim 
is  that  of  a pioneer  in  the  attempt  to  shake  off  the  domina- 
tion of  “foreign  theories  and  systems  of  political  economy,” 
and  develop  in  their  stead  a system  suited  to  America.”2 

Raymond’s  system  was  strongly  antagonistic  to  the  pre- 
vailing individualistic  philosophy;  it  leaned  to  govern- 
mental interference  in  opposition  to  laissez  faire , stood  for 
protective  tariffs,  decried  banks  and  paper  money,  and 
hurled  anathemas  at  slavery  as  an  economic  evil,  an  abom- 
ination before  the  Lord,  and  a curse  alike  upon  enslavers  and 
enslaved.  It  thus  touched  upon  sorely  vexed  questions  of 
the  day  over  which  the  fiercest  political  contests  were  being 
waged;  and  in  consequence  it  was  only  to  be  expected  that 
it  would  win  enthusiastic  admirers  on  the  one  hand,  and 
harsh  critics  on  the  other — each  equally  biased  and  one- 
sided in  their  respective  estimates  of  the  work.  Discrim- 
inating judgment  was  hardly  to  be  looked  for. 


1<cAt  the  time  this  book  was  commenced,  I had  no  expectation  of 
writing  more  than  a small  pamphlet,  and  of  this  I scarcely  anticipated 
a publication.  As  I have  said  before,  I wrote  rather  for  my  own 
amusement  and  instruction,  than  for  the  public;  but  as  I progressed 
the  subject  became  more  interesting — new  views  and  ideas  suggested 
themselves — and  I pressed  onward  until  it  has  grown  to  a volume.” 
P.  469. 

2“I  am  far  from  supposing  that  this  book  can  properly  be  demoni- 
nated  a general  treatise  on  political  economy.  I do  not  profess  to 
be  able  to  write  such  a book.  All  I say  is  that  it  is  a more  gen- 
eral treatise  than  any  that  has  to  my  knowledge  been  writ- 
ten in  our  country,  and  all  the  merit  I claim  for  it,  on  this  account,  is, 
that  of  having  made  an  humble  effort  to  break  loose  from  the  fetters 
of  foreign  authority;  from  foreign  theories  and  systems  of  political 
economy,  which  from  the  dissimilarity  in  the  nature  of  the  govern- 
ments, renders  them  altogether  unsuited  to  our  country.”  Preface  to 
1st  ed.,  pp.  V.-VI. 


16 


Daniel  Raymond  and  His  Work. 


[226 


The  North  American  Review 1 devoted  twenty-three  pages 
of  its  space  to  Raymond’s  work.  The  reviewer2  is  a free 
trader  and  worships  at  the  shrine  of  Adam  Smith.  As  a 
heretic  Raymond  calls  out  his  severest  condemnation.  The 
criticism  is  caustic,3  and  the  reviewer  has  on  his  “learned 
sock.”  He  essays  to  write  profoundly,  but  gets  no  farther 
than  irrelevant  quibbles  and  pedantic  dialectic;  he  misses 
the  real  importance  of  Raymond’s  work,  its  significant 
characteristic  escapes  him  entirely. 

The  National  Recorder,  of  Philadelphia,  a journal  profess- 
ing to  speak  authoritatively  on  the  subject  of  political  econ- 
omy, adds  the  weight  of  its  disapproval.  It  deprecates  the 
intrusion  into  the  economic  field  of  a man  bred  to  the  pro- 
fession of  the  law,  and  seems  to  think  the  shoemaker  would 
best  stick  to  his  last.4 

The  National  Gazette ,5  of  Philadelphia,  concedes  to  Ray- 
mond “a  nice  discernment  and  a marked  capacity  for  the 
investigations  in  which  he  has  engaged;”  but  it  cannot  for- 
give him  for  “an  extravagant  disparagement  of  the  great 
lights  of  the  science  which  he  treats,  and  an  overweening 
confidence  in  the  superior  justness  of  his  own  perceptions, 
and  the  superior  acuteness  and  solidity  of  his  own  reason- 
ings,”— a criticism  to  which  Raymond  had  undeniably  laid 
himself  open. 


1 April,  1821,  Vol.  XII. 

2F.  C.  Gray,  LL.  D.,  an  attorney  of  Salem,  Mass. 

3“It  would  have  been  no  derogation  from  the  merit  of  this  work 
had  it  appeared  before  the  public  with  humbler  pretensions.  It 

. . . . lays  claim  to  complete  originality The 

science  of  political  economy  is  so  little  an  object  of  popular  atten- 
tion, and  has  really  made  so  much  progress  unobserved  by  the  com- 
munity, that  the  student  on  first  engaging  in  it,  is  apt  to  be  aston- 
ished at  the  result  of  his  inquiries,  and  to  fancy  that  what  is  so  new 
to  him  must  be  new  to  others.  But  in  this  as  in  other  pursuits,  the 
boast  of  superior  wisdom  does  not  arise  from  an  excess  of  knowledge 
so  often  as  from  a want  of  it.” 

4C7.  Fed.  Gaz.  and  Balto.  Daily  Ad.,  January  31,  1821. 

5January  12,  1821. 


227]  Daniel  Raymond  and  His  Work.  17 

The  prophet,  however,  was  not  without  honor  in  his  own 
country,  which,  in  this  instance,  is  interpreted  to  mean  Balti- 
more. 

Niles’  Register,1  of  Baltimore,  strongly  protectionist,  pro- 
nounces favorable  judgment  upon  the  work,  and  “can  recom- 
mend it  to  the  consideration  of  those  who  are  desirous  of  in- 
formation upon  this  important  subject,  as  well  worthy  of 
attentive  perusal.” 

The  Federal  Gazette  and  Baltimore  Daily  Advertiser 2 thinks 
the  work  “evinces  considerable  talent,  deep  research,  and  at- 
tentive and  judicious  consideration  of  the  subject,”  and  that 
it  is  “highly  honorable  to  the  author,  and  worthy  of  the  at- 
tention of  our  fellow-citizens.”  The  Gazette,  with  com- 
mendable local  pride,  also  takes  up  the  cudgel  in  defense 
of  its  fellow-townsman  against  the  attacks  of  its  Philadel- 
phia contemporaries,  which,  it  alleges,  are  inspired  by  hatred 
of  everything  that  comes  out  of  Baltimore. 

Farther  from  home  Raymond’s  work  found  even  more 
enthusiastic  admirers, — in  the  protectionist  camp.  The 
Patron  of  Industry,  a journal  published  in  New  York,  wear- 
ied, probably,  by  “the  servile  homage  to  the  theories  put  forth 
in  the  name  of  political  economy  in  Europe,”  waxed  enthu- 
siastic and  hailed  the  work  as  an  honor  to  the  author,  his 
subject,  and  his  country.3 


1Dec.  1 6,  1820. 

2Dec.  13,  1820. 

3“We  took  up  this  work  in  the  anxious  hope  that  the  author, 
whether  right  or  wrong  in  his  system,  was  in  point  of  talents  worthy 
to  be  the  author  of  the  first  formal  treatise  upon  the  subject  of  Po- 
litical Economy  on  this  side  of  the  Atlantic,  and  that  he  had  suffi- 
cient courage  to  take  the  field  against  the  spirit  of  servile  homage  to 
the  theories  put  forth  in  the  name  of  political  economy  in  Europe 
from  the  period  of  the  economists  down  to  the  present  day. 

“The  perusal  of  the  work  did  not  disappoint  us  in  these  particulars. 
The  writer  has  given  evidence,  not  only  of  talents  adequate  to  his 
undertaking,  but  of  a disposition  to  employ  the  powers  of  his  mind 
in  simplifying  and  rendering  clear  and  perspicuous  what  others  have 
treated  obscurely,  and  rendered  inconsistent  and  incomprehensible. 
The  book  cannot  only  be  read  without  fatigue,  but  it  can  be  under- 


18  Daniel  Raymond  and  His  Work.  [228 

Frederick  Beasley,  provost  of  the  University  of  Pennsyl- 
vania, wrote  encouragingly  to  the  author,  to  express  the 
gratification  that  he  as  an  American  felt  in  a countryman 
who  displayed  “such  just  and  profound  comprehension  of 
his  subject.”* 1 

John  Adams,  from  his  retreat  at  Montizello,  writes  that 
he  regards  it  as  the  best  work  that  has  appeared  on  political 
economy,  and  “a  proud  monument  of  American  literature 
and  he  purposes  constituting  himself  its  propagandist2 

Mathew  Carey,  then  bearing  the  heat  and  burden  of  the 
battle  for  protection,  and  delighted  to  find  a brother  pro- 


stood.  The  writer  has  treated  his  subject  far  more  scientifically  than 
his  predecessors,  not  merely  in  his  divisions  and  definitions,  but  also 
in  his  precision  in  the  use  of  words,  and  in  the  employment  of  tech- 
nical terms  and  phrases. 

“As  to  the  doctrines  taught  in  this  book  they  are  to  a considerable 
extent  new;  and  in  most  part  they  differ  from  the  old  ones  to  which 
they  stand  opposed,  we  think  very  much  as  nature  differs  from  art, 
truth  from  fiction  and  light  from  darkness.  There  are  several  funda- 
mental points,  concerning  which  the  various  writers  in  political 
economy  have  been  most  bewildered  and  inconsistent,  which  by 
starting  right  and  reasoning  right,  he  appears  to  us  to  have  extricated 
from  the  confusion  by  which  they  have  so  long  been  embar- 
rassed. Such  are  the  nature  of  national  wealth — labor,  productive 
and  unproductive,  standard  of  value,  source  and  cause  of  national 
wealth,  mercantile  system,  &c.,  &c.  We  have  no  hesitation  in  say- 
ing, that  we  think  he  has  thrown  more  light  on  several  of  these 
questions  than  all  the  other  writers  who  have  meddled  with  them. 

“We  should  have  liked  his  preface  well  enough  if  it  had  not  been 
in  the  front  of  his  book.  It  does  not  fairly  introduce  the  reader  to 
the  acute,  logical,  and  philosophic  mind  which  is  spread  over  the 
succeeding  pages.  We  know  nothing  of  the  author;  but  we  hail 
his  work  as  an  honor  to  himself,  his  country  and  his  subject.” 

1“I  have  read  it  with  close  attention,  and  I cannot  refrain  from 
expressing  to  you  the  pleasure  it  has  given  me.  Amidst  the  false 
tastes  and  crude  productions  of  the  times,  it  is  a real  gratification 
to  an  American,  who  has  at  heart  the  literary  reputation  of  his 
country,  to  find  a writer  who  displays  such  clear  views,  just  and  pro- 
found comprehension  of  his  subject,  and  such  neatness  and  perspicu- 
ity of  style.”  Cf.  preface  to  Raymond’s  4th  ed. 

2“Although  reading  is  almost  an  intolerable  imposition  upon  my 
eyes,  yet  I have  read  this  volume  through,  and  have  been  richly  re- 


229] 


Daniel  Raymond  and  His  Work. 


19 


tectionist,  pronounces  “Raymond’s  political  economy  a work 
far  superior”  to  either  Smith’s  Wealth  of  Nations  or  Say’s 
Political  Economy.1  So  impressed  was  Carey  with  Ray- 
mond’s work,  that,  “in  a moment  of  enthusiasm,”  he  made 
an  offer  of  $500  a year  to  the  University  of  Maryland,2  for 


warded  for  my  pains,  by  the  pleasure  and  instruction  I have  received. 
. . . . I have  never  read  any  work  upon  political  economy  with 

more  satisfaction.  It  is  a rich  addition  to  my  library,  or  what  is  of 
infinitely  more  importance,  a proud  monument  of  American  litera- 
ture  You  have  indeed  cracked  the  shell  of  political  econ- 

omy and  extracted  the  purest  oil  from  the  nut.  I shall  warmly  rec- 
ommend it  to  the  perusal  of  every  man  of  letters  that  I see.”  Ibid. 

biographical  Sketches,  p.  9. 

2It  is  to  be  regretted  that  the  whole  history  of  this  episode  can  not 
be  given.  The  records  of  the  University  have  been  destroyed  by 
fire,  but  the  following  extracts  from  Carey’s  Biographical  Sketches 
give  the  external  history: 

‘Tn  this  year  I displayed  a degree  of  quixotism,  that  might  have 
cost  me  dear,  but  I -fortunately  escaped.  Daniel  Raymond,  Esq., 
of  Baltimore,  had  just  published  his  “Political  Economy,”  a valuable 
work,  containing  more  sound  practical  truths  than  I had  ever  seen 
in  any  book  on  the  subject.  I was  delighted  with  the  work  and,  in 
a moment  of  enthusiasm,  it  struck  me  that  a course  of  lectures  on 
the  subject,  to  be  delivered  by  Mr.  Raymond,  would  have  a most 
salutary  effect.  Accordingly,  I gave  a pledge  to  the  University  of 
Maryland,  to  pay  five  hundred  dollars  a year  towards  the  expense  .of 
a professorship  of  political  economy  in  that  institution.  To  the 
discredit  of  the  faculty  be  it  said  that  they  did  not  condescend  to 
reply  to  me.  They,  however,  declined  to  make  any  additional  pro- 
vision on  the  subject,  and  the  sum  I proposed  not  being  sufficient 
to  induce  Mr.  Raymond  to  abandon  his  practice  the  project  fell  to 
the  ground.  My  reason  for  applying  to  the  University  of  Maryland, 
was  that  Mr.  Raymond  lived  in  Baltimore,  and  I was  determined  that 
he  alone  should  be  the  lecturer,  as  I would  then  be  sure  not  to  throw 
away  my  money  to  promulgate  pernicious  doctrines.” 

“Philadelphia,  January  12,  1822. 

“Know  all  men  by  these  presents,  that  I do  hereby  bind  myself  to 
pay  to  the  University  of  Maryland,  the  sum  of  500  dollars,  as  one 
year’s  salary  for  a professor  of  political  economy,  and  also  to  con- 
tinue the  subscription,  unless  I shall  give  six  month’s  previous  no- 
tice of  my  determination  to  discontinue  the  same. 

(Signed)  Mathew  Carey.” 


20 


Daniel  Raymond  and  His  Work. 


[230 


the  purpose  of  endowing  a professorship  of  political  econ- 
omy to  be  filled  by  Raymond.  But  this  offer,  opening  up  a 

Letter  from  Carey  to  Raymond: 

“Philadelphia,  January  12,  1822. 

“I  have  fully  made  up  my  mind  to  establish  the  professorship  as 
stated  in  my  last  letter,  provided  it  can  be  done  for  500  dollars  per 
annum.  I shall  pay  one-half  of  the  first  year’s  salary,  on  the  deliv- 
ery of  the  first  lecture,  and  the  other  half  on  the  completion  of  the 
course. 

“Should  I at  any  time  determine  to  withdraw  from  the  undertak- 
ing, I shall  regard  myself  at  liberty  to  do  so,  on  giving  six  months’ 
previous  notice.  But  it  is  highly  probable  that  I shall  continue  it  as  long 
as  I live;  and  indeed  make  provision  for  it  at  my  death.  You  are  at 
liberty  to  make  the  necessary  inquiries  of  the  president  of  the  uni- 
versity. As  for  your  fitness  for  the  situation,  it  cannot  be  ques- 
tioned. I regard  you  as  peculiarly  qualified  for  it.” 

From  Raymond  to  Carey: 

“Baltimore,  January  18,  1822. 

“Your  letter,  stating  the  liberal  endowment  you  propose  to  make 
towards  the  establishment  of  a professorship  of  political  economy 
for  the  University  of  Maryland,  has  been  received  and  laid  before 
the  board  of  regents,  who  will,  no  doubt,  duly  appreciate  your  muni- 
ficence and  communicate  with  you  further  on  the  subject. 

As  regards  myself,  although  it  may  not  be  in  my  power  to  co- 
operate with  you  in  carrying  your  patriotic  design  into  effect,  yet 
I shall  ever  feel  a grateful  sense  of  your  kindness  and  liberality.” 

From  Carey  to  Raymond: 

“Philadelphia,  January  19,  1822. 

“I  feel  much  uneasiness  at  the  receipt  of  your  letter,  lest  you 
should  not  undertake  the  professorship  in  question.  My  views 
were  directed  to  Maryland,  entirely  in  consequence  of  the  confi- 
dence I felt  that  the  choice  would  fall  on  you,  and  of  my  approbation 
of  the  principles  of  political  economy  you  have  so  ably  advocated. 

“In  the  event  of  your  declining,  or  not  being  elected,  the  choice 
may  fall  on  some  person  who  may  preach  unsound  doctrines,  per- 
nicious to  the  happiness  of  our  citizens,  and  to  the  prosperity  of 
the  nation.  In  this  case,  I should  devote  my  money  to  a purpose 
diametrically  opposite  to  my  intentions.  Against  this  I here  enter 
my  protest.  The  foreign  world  furnishes  us  with  apostles  sufficient 
to  preach  those  pestiferous  doctrines  whose  operation  has  blasted 
the  energies  of  the  nation,  and  effectively  rendered  her  a colony  to 
the  manufacturing  nations  of  the  old  world.  We  have  no  need  to 
hire  them  here  to  accomplish  this  baleful  purpose.”  Biographical 
Sketches,  pp.  93-96. 


231] 


Daniel  Raymond  and  His  Work. 


21 


vista  of  possibilities,  came  to  naught.  It  is  possible  that 
Raymond’s  chapter  on  slavery  was  a factor  in  determining 
the  outcome. 

Despite  the  warm  commendation  the  work  excited  in  some 
quarters,  it  was  not  able  to  “command  the  attention  of  the 
generality  of  readers.”  It  was  offered  to  the  public  in  an 
edition  of  hardly  more  than  seven  hundred  and  fifty  copies, 
and  of  this  number  “probably  one-third  were  sacrificed  at 
auction.”1  Nothing  daunted  by  this,  but  encouraged  by 
the  favorable  opinion  expressed  by  “some  of  the  most  ex- 
perienced and  intelligent  men  in  our  country,”  Raymond  in 
1823  gave  to  the  unappreciative  public  a second,  and  revised 
edition  of  his  work.2 

The  principles  laid  down  in  the  first  edition  were  not  de- 
parted from,  nor  modified.  The  asperity  that  marked  its 
tone  was  somewhat  softened,  and  much  harsh  criticism  of 
Adam  Smith  was  omitted — though  sufficient  of  this  latter 
crops  out  in  the  second  edition  to  satisfy  a moderate  op- 
ponent of  “foreign  systems.”  The  arrangement  of  the  work 


1Ibid.,  p.  9. 

2In  the  second  edition  Raymond  omits  the  unique  preface  that  in- 
troduced the  first,  and  in  its  place  writes:  “On  presenting  the  public 
with  a second  edition  of  this  work,  the  author  feels  himself  con- 
strained to  express  his  gratitude  for  the  kind  reception,  which  the 
first  hasty  and  imperfect  edition  met  with,  from  a portion  of  his  fel- 
low-citizens. It  was  not  to  be  expected,  that  a work,  whatever 
might  be  its  merits,  upon  so  abstruse  and  forbidding  a subject  as 
political  economy,  would  command  the  attention  of  the  generality 
of  readers  in  any  country;  and  it  would  indeed  be  a wonder,  if  a 
book  on  any  subject,  written  on  the  wrong  side  of  the  Atlantic, 
with  the  author’s  name  to  it,  should  be  favorably  received  by  the 
public  generally.  Our  independence  is  not  sufficiently  established 
for  that. 

“But  as  some  of  the  most  experienced  and  intelligent  men  in  our 
country  have  expressed  a favorable  opinion  of  the  model,  (for  the 
first  edition  was  but  a model),  and  intimated  that  it  was  susceptible 
of  being  executed  in  such  a manner  as  to  be  worthy  of  public  patron- 
age, the  author  felt  himself  not  only  justified,  but  required  to  make 
another  effort  to  improve  the  work.” 


22 


Daniel  Raymond  and  His  Work. 


[232 


was  altered,  several  chapters  were  recast,  and  a few  new 
ones  added,  developing  special  topics  that  were  of  secondary- 
importance  in  Raymond’s  system. 

A copy  of  this  second  edition  found  its  way  to  England, 
and  was  pronounced  by  “Blackwood’s”  “a  work  of  extra- 
ordinary value;”  but  this  criticism  was  that  of  an  American 
temporarily  resident  in  London, — a personal  acquaintance, 
likely,  and  possibly  even  a friend  of  Raymond — and  does  not 
represent  an  English  estimate  of  the  value  of  the  work.  It 
was  unable  to  secure  a review  at  the  hands  of  an  English 
reviewer.1 

The  second  edition  appears  to  have  met  with  as  little  pop- 
ular favor  as  the  first.  Its  sale  was  “very  slow  and  limited,” 
and  Raymond  seems  to  have  been  “a  considerable  loser”  as 
the  result  of  trying  to  furnish  his  fellow-citizens  with  a sys- 
tem of  political  economy  of  domestic  manufacture.  The 


1In  1820  a series  of  articles  appeared  in  “Blackwood’s”  on  “Amer- 
ican Writers.”  They  purported  to  be  from  the  pen  of  an  English- 
man, but  the  real  author  was  John  Neal,  “a  Yankee,  from  Maine,” 
and,  like  Raymond,  at  one  time  a member  of  the  Baltimore  bar. 
Neal  gave  up  the  practice  of  law  for  literature,  and  spent  the  years 
1823-27  in  England,  where  he  was  a frequent  contributor  to  the  Brit- 
ish periodicals.  His  reference  to  Raymond  is  in  his  series  on 
“American  Writers,”  in  Blackwood’s  for  February,  1825,  Vol.  XVII., 
p.  200,  and  is  as  follows:  “Daniel  Raymond;  a Yankee;  from  Con- 
necticut, New  England;  a counsellor  at  law;  author  of  a work  on 
political  economy,  (2  vols.  8vo.),  where  a multitude  of  problems, 
phenomena,  etc.,  etc.,  are  explained  with  a simplicity  quite  start- 
ling— nay,  quite  provoking — to  those  who  have  been  wasting  years 
upon  the  science.  We  look  upon  it  as  a work  of  extraordinary 
value.  It  should  have  been  republished  here;  or,  at  least,  re- 
viewed. A friend  of  ours  (Neal)  brought  a copy  “out,”  and  ex- 
erted himself  not  a little,  in  trying  to  get  some  notice  taken  of  it, 
by  somebody  equal  to  the  job.  Twice  he  was  promised,  without 
qualification,  that  it  should  be  done.  Twice  he  was  disappointed. 
He  then  gave  up  the  point.”  While  in  London  Neal  lived  for  con- 
siderable time  with  Jeremy  Bentham,  and  was  intimate  with  the 
little  group  of  utilitarians,  and  economists,  who  used  to  meet  peri- 
odically in  Bentham’s  study.  Was  it  possibly  to  one  of  these  that 
he  gave  Raymond’s  treatise  for  review? 


233]  Daniel  Raymond  and  His  Work.  23 

two  editions  together  numbered  only  twelve  hundred  and 
fifty  copies,  and  whilst  each  had  failed  of  complete  sale, 
Say’s  treatise  had,  during  the  same  time,  been  translated  and 
republished  here  in  two  editions, — the  first  of  seven  hundred 
and  fifty,  and  the  second  of  two  thousand  copies — and  both 
had  been  sold  out.  Some  two  thousand  copies  of  reprints  of 
Adam  Smith  had  also  been  taken  up  by  the  American  pub- 
lic.1 These  facts  scarcely  bear  out  Raymond’s  complaint 
that  “a  very  small  portion  of  the  intelligent  reading  part  of 
the  community  ever  think  of  reading  a book  upon  the  sub- 
ject” of  political  economy,  and  indicate  that  the  indifference 
which  Jefferson  lamented  in  1815  was  passing  away. 

The  failure  of  Raymond’s  work  to  win  popular  favor  is  not 
in  itself  sufficient  to  convict  the  public  of  his  day  of  an  in- 
difference to  his  science;  the  cause  of  this  failure  may  more 
properly  be  sought  in  the  character  of  the  work  itself.  It 
was  not  without  merit;  in  many  respects  it  was  worthy  of  the 
attention  of  the  time,  and  merited  a more  careful  and  con- 
siderate perusal  than  it  received.  But  looseness  of  method 
marked  it,  and  frequently  confusion  of  ideas;  and  in  addition 
it  touched  upon  too  many  questions  that  were  then  the  cen- 
ters of  political  storms.  On  one  side  or  another  it  found 
itself  in  opposition  to  some  popular  prejudice.  It  ran  coun- 
ter to  the  philosophy  of  individualism,  which  was  the  ac- 
cepted gospel  of  the  elect  of  those  days.  Its  advocacy  of 
protection  was  too  liberal  to  please  the  more  rabid  advocates 
of  an  “American  System,”  and  too  pronounced,  on  the  other 
hand,  to  win  readers  from  amongst  the  strict  disciples  of 
laissez  faire.  Its  intolerant  opposition  to  banks  and  to  all 
forms  of  corporations  destroyed  the  value  of  his  work  in  the 
eyes  of  the  advocates  of  these  institutions.  His  fierce  hatred 
of  slavery  was  a fatal  obstacle  to  popularity  in  the  South. 
It  is  more  than  probable  that  the  unstinted  praise  and  ad- 
miration the  work  elicited  from  John  Adams  was  not  due 
so  much  to  any  real  merit  it  possessed  as  a scientific  treatise 
as  from  the  fact  that  Adams  was  a Federalist  and  believed 
in  strong  central  government,  stood  for  protection,  abhorred 


1Carey,  Biographical  Sketches,  p.  9. 


24 


Daniel  Raymond  and  His  Work. 


[234 


banks  and  paper  money,1  and  loathed  slavery;2  and  that  in 
all  these  things  he  found  in  Raymond  a kindred  spirit.  But 
Adams’  type  was  not  numerous.  The  men  who  agreed  with 
Raymond  in  the  matter  of  the  province  of  government  and 
of  protection,  would  not  have  subscribed  to  his  views  on 
the  banks;  and  those  who  would  have  been  in  agreement 
with  his  views  on  banks,  were  repelled  by  his  position  on 
slavery. 

Raymond’s  second  edition  scarcely  attracted  the  atten- 
tion of  even  the  reviewers,  and  little  notice  of  it  appears  until 
1825.  A report  then  started  the  rounds  of  the  press, — orig- 
inating apparently  with  his  friend  and  defender,  the  Federal 
Gazette,  of  Baltimore — to  the  effect  that  the  work  had  been 
adopted  in  the  University  of  Virginia  as  the  standard  text- 
book on  political  economy;3  but  this  was  promptly,  and  em- 
phatically, denied  by  the  Richmond  Enquirer .4 


1<<I  have  never  had  but  one  opinion  concerning  banking,  from 
the  institution  of  the  first  in  Philadelphia,  by  Mr.  Robert  Morris, 
and  Mr.  Gouverneur  Morris,  and  that  opinion  has  uniformly  been 
that  the  banks  have  done  more  injury  to  the  religion,  morality, 
tranquility,  prosperity,  and  even  wealth  of  the  nation,  than  they  can 
have  done  or  ever  will  do  good.  They  are  like  party  spirit,  the  de- 
lusion of  the  many  for  the  benefit  of  the  few.”  “Works,”  Vol.  X., 
P-  375- 

“Our  whole  banking  system  I ever  abhorred,  I continue  to  abhor, 

and  I shall  die  abhorring Every  bank  of  discount,  every 

bank  by  which  interest  is  to  be  paid,  or  profit  of  any  kind  made  by 

the  deponent,  is  downright  corruption Every  bank  in 

the  Union  ought  to  be  annihilated,  and  every  bank  of  discount  pro- 
hibited to  all  eternity.”  Ibid.,  Vol.  IX.,  p.  638. 

2 Ibid.,  Vol.  X.,  p.  381. 

3“We  feel  gratified  to  learn  that  the  work  of  our  fellow-citizen, 
Mr.  Raymond,  on  political  economy,  has  been  adopted  in  the  Uni- 
versity of  Virginia,  as  the  standard  work  on  that  subject  in  that  in- 
stitution. When  we  consider  the  high  political  as  well  as  literary 
reputation  of  the  gentlemen  who  are  at  the  head  of  that  institution, 
among  whom  are  the  two  ex-Presidents,  Jefferson  and  Madison,  we 
cannot  but  think  this  a most  flattering  compliment  to  the  work,  and 
one  which  can  not  fail  to  establish  its  reputation  with  the  American 
people.”  Federal  Gazette,  June,  1825. 

4“A  paragraph  from  a Baltimore  paper  is  now  going  the  rounds, 


235]  Daniel  Raymond  and  His  Work.  25 

In  1836  Raymond  seems  to  have  believed  the  time  ripe  for 
the  acceptance  of  his  principles,  and  he  accordingly  issued  a 
third  edition  of  his  work.  It  was  identical  with  the  edition 
of  thirteen  years  before,  except  for  the  addition  of  a chapter 
on  “Tariffs,”  discussing  the  incidence  of  an  impost  tax. 
Other  than  this,  not  a word  nor  a comma  was  changed  from 
the  second  edition.  The  two  editions  appear  to  have  been 
struck  from  the  same  plates. 

Of  the  fate  of  this  edition  I can  find  no  traces.  It  must 
have  met  with  more  success  than  the  preceding  ones,  for  in 
1840  Raymond  was  encouraged  to  put  out  a fourth  edition. 
The  second  and  third  editions  had  been  issued  in  two  vol- 
umes, in  large  type,  thus  forming  a bulky  and  unhandy  treat- 
ise. Believing,  probably,  that  a more  compact  and  handy 
volume  would  be  more  acceptable  to  the  public,  he  com- 
pressed the  work  in  the  fourth  edition  into  one  small  volume. 
In  essentials — with  one  exception  to  be  noted — it  was  prac- 
tically the  same  work  that  had  appeared  twenty  years  be- 
fore, and  twice  at  subsequent  periods.  The  last  edition 
could  not  so  much  be  called  revised,  as  condensed.  The 
process  of  condensation  consisted  in  omitting  entirely  sev- 
eral of  the  chapters  added  in  the  second  edition,  and  others 
that  had  appeared  in  the  original  edition,  and  in  shortening 
the  remaining  chapters  by  the  wholesale  cutting  out  of  para- 
graph after  paragraph,  and  even  of  page  after  page.  It  must 
be  admitted  that  the  constant  repetitions  that  characterized 
the  book  made  it  peculiarly  suited  to  this  sort  of  revision. 

We  are  left  to  surmise  to  account  for  the  appearance,  in 
comparatively  rapid  succession,  of  these  last  two  editions, 

viz.,  that  ‘the  work  of  Mr.  Raymond  on  Political  Economy,  has  been 
adopted  in  the  University  of  Virginia  as  the  standard  work  on  that 
subject.’  Having  some  reasons  to  doubt  the  correctness  of  such 
an  assertion,  while  such  works  as  Say,  Ricardo,  Adam  Smith,  &c., 
are  in  existence,  we  requested  a friend  to  ascertain  the  facts;  and 
we  are  now  enabled  to  state  positively  that  Mr.  Raymond’s  work  is 
not  used  as  the  text-book  at  the  university,  and  that  it  is  not  known 
there  except  to  Mr.  Tucker,  and  possibly  to  Mr.  Emmett.”  Rich. 
Enq.,  July  1,  1825. 


26 


Daniel  Raymond  and  His  Work. 


[236 


after  the  little  success  that  had  attended  the  earlier  ones. 
During  the  thirteen  years  elapsing  between  the  second  and 
third  editions  Raymond  had  apparently  given  little  thought 
to  economics.  Had  he  done  so,  and  kept  abreast  of  the  de- 
velopment of  the  science,  he  would  hardly  have  made  his 
third  edition  a mere  reprint  of  his  second.  The  public  seem 
to  have  grown  to  value  him  more  as  a lawyer  than  as  an 
economist,  and  to  have  given  him  sufficient  employment  in 
his  chief  profession  to  prevent  the  necessity  of  his  again 
having  to  seek  diversion  in  formulating  new  economic  the- 
ories. In  his  fourth  edition  he  devotes  some  thirty  pages  to 
a commentary  on  the  constitution.  Such  a discussion  was 
perfectly  germane  to  his  subject,  as  he  conceived  it.  The 
idea  of  writing  it,  was  suggested  to  him  by  Provost 
Beasley  in  his  letter  of  1824,  but  in  the  preface  to  his  fourth 
edition,  Raymond  explains  that  he  had  “had  no  leisure  until 
lately,  to  write  such  a treatise.”  The  intervening  sixteen 
years,  we  may  infer,  had  been  a trnsy  period  for  him  in  his 
regular  profession,  and  had  left  no  time  for  authorship. 

In  1836  economic  issues  were  more  than  ever  the  bone 
of  political  contention;  and  it  is  likely  that  the  triumph  of 
Jackson  and  the  hard  money  party  over  the  bank,  the  in- 
crease of  the  abolition  sentiment,  and  the  struggle  that  was 
going  on  to  bring  about  a return  to  protective  principles,  led 
Raymond  to  think  the  time  opportune  for  the  acceptance  of 
his  doctrines.  This  assumption  is  supported  by  the  fact  that 
the  only  change  in  the  edition  of  1836  is  the  addition  of  a 
chapter  on  tariffs;  and  that  in  the  edition  of  1840,  whilst 
many  chapters  are  omitted,  and  most  of  the  remaining  ones 
pruned  severely,  the  chapter  on  slavery  is  left  untouched; 
the  one  on  banking  is  modified  only  by  the  addition  of  a par- 
agraph arguing  against  the  constitutionality  of  the  bank; 
the  one  on  money  is  likewise  left  untouched  save  for  the  addi- 
tion of  a paragraph ; the  chapter  on  tariffs,  added  in  the  third 
edition,  is  retained;  and  the  chapter  on  corporations  is  en- 
tirely rewritten, — and  from  rabid  opposition  changes  to  mild 


237]  Daniel  Raymond  and  His  Work.  27 

tolerance  of  these  organizations.  The  preface  also  adduces 
the  political  history  of  the  preceding  twenty  years  as  an  ex- 
emplification of  the  truth  of  Raymond’s  principles. 

This  fourth  edition  seems  to  have  impressed  John  Quincy 
Adams  as  much  as  the  first  one  had  impressed  his  distin- 
guished father.  The  son  was  at  that  time  waging  the  battle 
of  abolition  in  the  national  house  of  representatives  with  all 
his  strength,  and  it  is  quite  possible  that  it  wa/S  Raymond’s 
vehement  chapter  on  slavery  that  won  the  admiration  of  this 
valiant  champion,  rather  than  the  general  soundness  of  his 
economic  principles.  At  all  events,  he  deemed  the  work 
worthy  of  the  perusal  of  his  fellow-statesman,  and  he  found 
time,  between  presentations  of  abolition  petitions,  to  make  a 
formal  presentation  of  a copy  of  Raymond’s  book  to  the 
library  of  the  house  of  representatives.  But  there  were 
those  among  his  colleagues  who  could  not  find  it  in  their 
hearts  to  share  the  admiration  of  Mr.  Adams  for  the  book, 
and  the  question  of  its  acceptance  created  a scene  in  the 
national  house  that  is  worthy  of  note  as  indicating  the 
standards  by  which  a scientific  treatise  on  economics  was 
judged  a half  century  ago,  and  the  storm  of  prejudice  it  had 
to  weather.1 


1House  of  Representatives;  June  23,  1840: 

“Mr.  Adams  presented  a work  on  political  economy,  by  Daniel 
Raymond,  of  Maryland;  which,  on  motion  of  Mr.  A.  was  ordered 
to  be  placed  in  the  library  of  the  House  of  Representatives.” 

June  24,  1840. 

“Mr.  Jones  moved  to  go  into  committee  of  the  whole  on  the 
state  of  the  union,  but  temporarily  withdrew  his  motion  at  the  re- 
quest of  Mr.  Crabb,  of  Alabama,  who  moved  a reconsideration  of 
the  decision  made  yesterday  to  receive  and  place  in  the  library  of 
the  House  of  Representatives,  a copy  of  Raymond’s  Political 
Economy.  Having  examined  that  book,  Mr.  Crabb  had  discovered 
that  it  contained  doctrine  and  language  highly  exceptionable  to  him 
as  a Southern  man;  in  case  of  reconsideration,  he  wished  to  move 
' the  reference  of  the  book  to  the  committee  on  the  library,  in  order 
that  it  might  be  examined  and  reported  on. 


28 


Daniel  Raymond  and  His  Work. 


[238 


II. 

In  all  its  principles  Raymond’s  system  stands  opposed  to 
the  orthodox  political  economy  of  his  time.  He  alleges 
against  the  prevailing  school,  that  it  has  failed  to  grasp  the 
true  concept  of  national  wealth,  and  has  therefore  missed 
the  real  aim  of  true  political  economy;  that  it  has  studied  how 
individuals  may  increase  their  wealth,  assuming  that  national 
wealth  was  nothing  other  than  the  sum  total  of  individual 
wealth,  and  that  consequently  the  study  of  how  individual 


Mr.  Turney  demanded  the  previous  question  on  the  motion  to  re- 
consider. The  previous  question  was  seconded,  put  and  carried; 
and  the  main  question  being  on  reconsidering,  Mr.  Jones  de- 
manded the  yeas  and  nays,  which  were  ordered.  Mr.  Adams  rose 
amidst  cries  of  order,  and  was  going  on  to  express  his  surprise  at  the 
motion  of  the  gentleman  from  Alabama,  and  to  give  some  account 
of  the  book,  when  he  was  arrested  by  the  chair.  Mr.  A.  remon- 
strated. The  chair  insisted  that  he  could  not  proceed,  but  by  gen- 
eral consent.  Objections  were  loudly  uttered. 

Mr.  Lincoln  said  that  unless  his  colleague  were  permitted  to  pro- 
ceed and  give  the  House  some  account  of  the  book,  Mr.  L.  should 
demand  that  the  book  itself  be  read.  Objections  being  made,  Mr. 
Lincoln  demanded  that  the  book  be  read.  The  chair  decided  that  as 
the  gentleman  from  Massachusetts  (Mr.  Lincoln)  was  called  to 
vote  respecting  this  book,  he  had  a right,  under  the  rules  of  the 
House,  to  have  it  read,  if  he  so  demanded.  Great  confusion  arose. 
Messrs.  Habersham,  Turney,  Andrews,  Hopkins,  and  others  were 
on  their  feet,  all  simultaneously  addressing  the  chair.  Mr.  Hopkins 
called  for  the  reading  of  the  rule  of  the  house,  and  also  of  Mr. 
Jefferson’s  manual  on  the  question  of  order.  Mr.  Lincoln  wished 
to  explain,  but  the  chair  refused,  the  previous  question  having  been 
ordered.  The  chair  then  stated  his  decision,  and  explained  the 
ground  on  which  it  rested. 

Mr.  Hopkins  took  an  appeal;  before  any  vote  was  taken  on  the 
appeal,  Mr.  Ramsay  moved  to  lay  the  whole  subject  on  the  table. 
Mr.  Crabb  wished  to  explain,  but  was  arrested.  The  question  being 
stated  from  the  chair,  Mr.  Adams  addressed  the  House.  (Loud 


239] 


Daniel  Raymond  and  His  Work. 


29 


wealth  is  augmented  is  at  the  same  time  the  study  of  how 
national  wealth  is  augmented;  that  it  has,  therefore,  busied 
itself  with  the  study  of  value,  a phenomenon  with  which 
political  economy  has  little  concern.1  In  opposition  to  this, 
he  contends  that  national  wealth  is  something  far  other  than 
the  sum  total  of  individual  wealth ; that  the  two  are  not  even 
composed  of  the  same  ingredients;  and  that  an  increase  in 
the  wealth  of  one  class  of  citizens  does  not  of  necessity  imply 
an  equal  increase  in  national  wealth. 

Distinguishing  national  from  individual  wealth,  Raymond 
defines  the  former  as  “a  capacity  for  acquiring  the  neces- 
saries and  comforts  of  life,”  by  labor.2  Capacity,  not  com- 

cries  of  order.)  The  gentleman  from  Alaba — the  chair  called  to 
order.  The  gentleman  from  Alabama  has  undertaken  (order!  or- 
der!) to  be  grand  inquisitor  for  this  House;  to  speak  (order!)  its 
opinion  on  a certain  book.  (Here  the  cries  of  order  were  very 
loud,  and  the  chair  ordered  'Mr.  Adams  to  resume  his  seat.)  The 
question  being  again  stated  Mr.  Crabb  demanded  the  yeas  and  nays, 
but  the  house  refused  to  order  them.  The  vote  being  taken,  the 
chair,  declared  it  to  be  decided  in  the  affirmative. 

The  question  was  again  put,  and  the  House  dividing,  the  yeas 
were  123  and  the  noes  30.  So  the  House  determined  that  the  whole 
subject  should  be  laid  on  the  table. 

^‘According  to  the  theory  suggested  in  the  preceding  chapter,  it 
will  follow  that  value  has  very  little  application  to  public  wealth;  a 
very  small  ingredient  or  portion  only  of  national  wealth  being  the 
subject  of  value.”  p.  84,  (4th  ed.) 

Unless  otherwise  specified,  succeeding  references  are  to  Ray- 
mond’s 4th  ed. 

2“This  capacity  never  can  exist  independent  of  labor.  Its  ex- 
tent, however,  will  depend  upon  a great  variety  of  other  circum- 
stances. It  will  be  materially  influenced  by  the  nature  of  the  gov- 
ernment. The  energies  of  a nation,  can  be  more  fully  developed 
under  a free,  than  under  an  arbitrary  or  tyranical  government. 

“This  capacity  will  also  depend  materially  upon  the  climate  and 
soil  of  a country;  on  the  extent  of  territory  in  proportion  to  the 
number  of  inhabitants;  on  the  denseness  of  the  population;  upon 
the  equal  or  unequal  division  of  property;  upon  the  state  of  culti- 
vation and  improvements;  on  the  degree  of  perfection  to  which  the 
arts  and  sciences  have  been  carried;  on  the  nation’s  advantageous 
situation  for  commerce,  and  especially  on  the  industrious  econom- 
ical habits  of  the  people.”  p.  81. 


30 


Daniel  Raymond  and  His  Work. 


[240 


modities,  constitutes  national  wealth. 

This  concept  of  national  wealth  is  the  first  characteristic 
principle  of  Raymond’s  system.  The  second  is  his  insistence 
upon  the  recognition  of  the  idea  of  a nation  as  an  organic 
unit.  The  existing  systems  of  political  economy  do  not,  he 
maintains,  so  conceive  the  nation.  They  have,  in  turn,  mis- 
taken the  interests  of  one  or  another  class  for  the  interests  of 
the  nation  as  a whole;  whereas  the  interest  of  an  individual 
or  a class  may  be  opposed  to  the  larger  interest  of  the  nation 
as  one  and  indivisible. 

From  these  two  principles,  Raymond  argues  that  it  is  not 
the  province  of  political  economy  to  study  how  values  are 
created  and  augmented,  and  how  individuals  or  classes  may 
acquire  wealth;  but  rather  to  study  how  government  may 
best  legislate  to  secure  the  greatest  well-being  to  all  citizens 
alike.1  Such  questions,  therefore,  as  value,  rent,  wages, 
profit,  and  interest,  Raymond  discusses  only  in  passing;2 
they  belong  properly  to  individual  economy,  and  not  to  na- 
tional economy.  The  topics  that  concern  him  as  a political 
economist,  are  the  larger  questions  that  operate  directly  and 
strongly  on  national  wealth,  and  with  which  legislative  pol- 
icy must  therefore  concern  itself. 

Labor  is  the  sole  cause  of  wealth  ;3  labor  power  is  wealth, — 
and  accordingly  Raymond  devotes  a chapter  to  labor.  He 
objects  to  Adam  Smith’s  classification  of  labor  as  productive 
and  unproductive.  All  labor  is  productive,  except  such  as 
fails  of  its  intended  effect.4  Instead  therefore  of  this  classi- 
fication, he  distinguishes  labor  as  productive  and  as  perma- 
nent. The  end  of  productive  labor  is  to  produce  things  for 
direct  consumption;  of  permanent  labor,  “to  enlarge  the 
boundaries  of  knowledge,  and  to  augment  the  capacity  for 
acquiring  the  necessaries  and  comforts  of  life.”5 

iP.  116. 

2 Rent,  wages,  profit,  and  interest,  were  not  discussed  in  the  first 
edition  of  the  work.  Short  chapters  were  devoted  to  them  in  the 
second  edition,  but  were  omitted  again  from  the  fourth. 

3“Labour  is  the  cause,  and  the  only  cause  of  wealth.”  p.  97. 

4P.  90.  5P.  95. 


Daniel  Raymond  and  His  Work. 


31 


241] 


A chapter  is  devoted  to  “Production  and  Consumption” 
In  it  Raymond  attacks  the  “absurd  doctrine  of  augmenting 
national  wealth  by  accumulation;”  maintaining  that  any 
excess  of  production  above  consumption  produces  stagna- 
tion and  distress  rather  than  wealth  and  prosperity.  Na- 
tional prosperity  is  promoted  only  when  all  the  fruits  of  pro- 
ductive labor  are  annually  consumed;  and  national  wealth 
is  augmented  when  wise  political  institutions  so  operate  as  to 
direct  a due  proportion  of  the  energies  of  the  nation  towards 
permanent  labor. 

Raymond  next  discusses  Agriculture,  Manufacture,  and 
Commerce,  in  their  influence  upon  national  wealth.  “Each 
of  these  three  great  departments  of  labor,  has  had  its  parti- 
sans, who  have  claimed  for  it  the  superiority  over  the  others, 
as  most  conducive  to  national  wealth.  It  is,  however,  mani- 
fest that  in  a national  point  of  view  they  are  but  parts  of  one 
great  system,  each  of  them  essential  to  the  other.”1  The 
proportion  that  ought  to  exist  between  them  will  depend  on 
circumstances  and  vary  in  different  nations,  and  the  wise 
legislator  will  encourage  or  restrain  them  in  such  way  as 
will,  in  the  circumstances  of  that  nation,  best  advance  na- 
tional wealth  and  prosperity. 

On  the  subject  of  money  Raymond  stands  with  the  “hard 
money”  school.  He  insists  on  “the  necessity  of  intrinsic 
value  in  whatever  is  used  as  money;  and  the  utter  impossi- 
bility of  giving  a nominal  value  to  money,  above  its  intrinsic 
value  as  a commodity  or  as  bullion.”2  He  holds  unques- 
tioningly  to  the  quantity  theory,  and  to  the  currency  prin- 
ciple. He  insists  that  to  the  government  alone  belongs  the 
function  of  furnishing  money,  whether  coin  or  “represent- 
ative paper,”  and  that  this  function  should  never  be  entrusted 
to  individuals  or  corporate  bodies.  The  “manufacture”  of 
credit  money  is  merely  “an  ingenuous  contrivance  upon  the 
public”  for  the  benefit  of  the  banks,  and  is  at  variance  with 


!P.  ii 7. 


2P.  165. 


32  Daniel  Raymond  and  His  Work.  [242 

sound  monetary  principles.  If  a paper  currency  be  needed, 
it  should  be  issued  by  the  government,  and  “whenever  a 
paper  dollar  is  put  in  circulation,  a silver  dollar  should  be 
withdrawn  from  circulation.”1 

To  “the  credit  system,  which  has  ruined  so  many  people,”2 
Raymond  is  in  general  opposed;  and  towards  the  banks, 
promoters  of  this  destructive  system,  he  is  thoroughly  hos- 
tile. As  “depositories  of  money  and  other  valuable  articles,” 
and  as  offices  for  buying  and  selling  bills  of  exchange  and 
discounting  real  notes,  banks  are  solely  beneficial  to  the  pub- 
lic; but  by  uniting  in  themselves  the  double  function  of 
loan  office  and  of  “manufacturers  of  paper  money”  they  are 
a constant  menace  to  prosperity,  and  invariably  cause  many 
and  grave  public  evils.  “By  being  loan  offices,  they  are 
enabled  to  loan  all  the  money  they  can  make,  or  at  least,  as 
much  as  they  please;  and  by  being  the  manufacturers  of  a 
paper  currency,  they  are  enabled  to  make  as  much  money  as 
they  can  loan.  So  long  as  these  two  functions  are  united  in 
the  same  body,  they  must  and  will  be  exercised  to  the  preju- 
dice of  the  public.”3  Nothing  but  the  “good  sense  of  the 
community  has  prevented  the  principle  upon  which  the 
banks  are  established,  from  being  carried  to  such  an  extreme 
as  to  ruin  the  country;” — had  it  been  otherwise,  and  nothing 
interfered  to  prevent  them  from  following  out  the  dictates  of 
their  interests,  the  banks  would  “have  become  possessed  of 
every  foot  of  property  in  the  country,  which  would  have  been 
paid  to  them  in  the  shape  of  interest  for  their  money.”4 
Against  banks  Raymond  lays  specific  indictments: 

“They  increase  the  quantity  of  circulating  medium,  and 
thereby  depreciate  its  value.”5 

“Banks  enable  money  lenders  to  obtain  usurious  interest 
for  their  actual  money.”6 

“Banks  promote  extravagant  speculation.”7 


P.  175.  2P.  153.  3P.  178.  4Ibid.  5P.  180.  6P.  186.  7P.  1 88. 


243] 


Daniel  Raymond  and  His  Work. 


33 


“Banks  cause  sudden  fluctuations  in  the  value  of  property, 
and  consequently  produce  extensive  failures.”1 

“Banks  have  a tendency  to  banish  the  precious  metals 
from  the  country.”2 

To  remedy  “the  evils  of  the  banking  or  credit  system,” 
Raymond  proposes  three  alternative  plans.3  These  evils, 
as  has  been  pointed  out,  result  from  uniting  in  one  body  the 
two  functions  of  loan  office  and  manufacturer  of  paper  cur- 
rency. Therefore,  let  the  power  of  issue  be  taken  from  the 
banks  entirely,  and  reserved  to  the  government;  or,  let  their 
issues  be  regulated  in  amount  by  the  government;  or,  if  they 
must  be  allowed  “to  retain  the  power  of  manufacturing  their 
own  notes  to  as  great  an  extent  as  they  please,”  let  there  be 
taken  from  them  “the  motive  to  loan  more  than  a certain 
amount  of  their  paper  in  proportion  to  the  amount  of  their 
capital.” 

The  first  plan  proposes  the  issue  by  government  of  paper 
money,  on  the  strict  currency  principle,  as  outlined  in  his 
discussion  of  money.4  If  this  method  be  adopted,  all  evils 
in  any  way  connected  with  the  banking  system  can  be  cured, 
by  the  simple,  but  drastic  process  of  abolishing  the  whole 
banking  system, — “which  may  be  done  without  any  incon- 
venience to  the  public.”5 

The  second  plan  proposes  that  the  banks  be  limited  in  the 
issue  of  their  notes  to  a certain  ratio  of  their  paid-up  capital, 
— all  notes  to  be  engraved  by  the  government  and  delivered 
to  the  banks  for  signature  and  issuance  only  upon  proof  of 
the  actual  amount  of  paid-up  capital.  This  plan  is,  in  effect, 
almost  identical  with  the  one  adopted  by  Congress  in  1863 
as  the  basis  of  the  national  bank  issues.6  The  third  plan 
proposes  that,  in  case  this  second  one  should  be  thought  im- 
practicable, a maximum  rate  be  fixed  by  law  for  bank  divi- 


1Ibid.  2P.  189.  3Pp.  192-3.  4Supra;  pp.  31-2.  5P.  193. 

6Raymond’s  plan,  in  view  of  its  close  resemblance  to  the  plan 
adopted  for  controlling  the  national  bank  issues,  is  worth  quoting  in 


34  Daniel  Raymond  and  His  Work.  [244 

dends,  and  all  surplus  profits  over  and  above  this  rate  be 
appropriated  by  the  government  for  the  public  benefit. 

Raymond  also  argues  against  the  constitutionality  of  a 
national  bank,  on  the  ground  that  it  is  virtually  turning  over 
to  a corporation  the  prerogative  of  acting  as  a regulator  of 
the  circulating  medium;  and  that  as  this  function  partakes 
of  the  nature  of  a legislative  rather  than  a ministerial  act,  it 
cannot  be  delegated  by  congress.1 

To  the  subject  of  “Finance,”  Raymond  devotes  little 
space.  That  branch  of  the  science  of  political  economy  is 
important  indeed,  but  has  been  exalted  into  undue  pre-emi- 
nence. A stateman’s  abilities  are  usually  estimated  by  his 
adroitness  and  skill  in  “diverting  a portion  of  the  stream  of 
public  wealth  into  the  public  treasury,”  whereas  “true  po- 
litical skill  consists  in  an  ability  to  augment  the  stream  itself 
of  public  wealth.”2  As  to  the  general  injurious  effect  of  tax- 
ation upon  production,  Raymond  takes  issue  with  Smith, 
Say,  and  Ricardo,  and  maintains  that  taxes  judiciously  ex- 
pended may  so  act  as  to  augment  national  wealth,  rather  than 


detail.  “If  we  must  have  a bank  paper  currency,  it  seems  proper 
that  it  should  be  under  the  control  of  the  government.  If  the  gov- 
ernment will  not  adopt  the  plan  suggested  in  the  chapter  on  money, 
let  it  take  into  its  own  hands  the  engraving  and  manufacturing  of 
bank  notes,  all  except  the  signatures,  and  establish  a mint,  and 
appoint  officers  under  proper  responsibility,  for  that  purpose.  The 
banks  are  to  be  permitted  to  issue  no  paper  except  what  they  obtain 
at  this  office  of  the  government.  The  government  is  then  to  de- 
termine the  amount  of  paper  the  banks  are  to  be  permitted  to  loan 
in  proportion  to  the  amount  of  their  capital — and  upon  the  incorpor- 
ation of  a bank,  and  proof  being  furnished  of  the  amount  of  specie  or 
capital  paid  in,  so  much  paper  is  to  be  furnished  the  bank  as  the 
government  has  fixed  upon,  as  the  quantity  the  bank  may  issue  in 
proportion  to  the  amount  of  its  capital.  In  some  such  way  as  this, 
it  would  seem  that  the  banks  might  be  restrained  from  excessive  is- 
sues of  a paper  currency.”  p.  193. 

This  chapter  was  written  in  1820. 

1P.  194.  2P-  237. 


245] 


Daniel  Raymond  and  His  Work . 


35 


affect  it  injuriously — however  they  may  affect  individuals  or 
classes.1  Equality  of  taxation  is  to  be  sought  with  refer- 
ence to  persons,  not  to  property.  Indirect  are  to  be  pre- 
ferred to  direct  taxes.  Taxes  are  classified,  land  tax,  excise 
tax,  and  imposts.  Of  these  imposts  have  an  undoubted 
preference  over  either  of  the  other  forms.  As  between  a 
land  tax  and  an  excise  tax  advantages  are  divided.2 

Rabid  hostility  towards  all  “money  corporations”  charac- 
terizes Raymond  at  the  beginning  of  his  career  as  an  econo- 
mist. So  far  as  is  possible  in  civil  society,  the  “natural 
equality”  of  men  should  be  preserved.  To  this  end  govern- 
ment should  bend  its  efforts.  Money  corporations  are  “arti- 
ficial engines  of  power,  contrived  by  the  rich,  for  the  purpose 
of  increasing  their  already  too  great  ascendency,  and  calcu- 
lated to  destroy  that  natural  equality  among  men,  which  no 
government  ought  to  lend  its  power  in  destroying.”  “Cor- 
porations are,  therefore,  prima  facie , injurious  to  national 
wealth.”3  But  in  his  last  edition  (1840)  Raymond  grows 
more  discriminating  in  his  condemnations.  He  suggests 
merely  legislative  supervision  over  the  most  objectionable 
forms  of  public  corporations,  for,  “then  they  become  the  mere 
agents  of  the  legislature  to  accomplish  a public  good.”  As 


1Pp.  247-8. 

2“Imposts  have  an  undoubted  preference  over  all  other  taxes, 
are  indirect,  and  are,  therefore,  paid  voluntarily.  They  are  levied 
and  collected  when  the  goods  are  in  the  hands  of  the  fewest  persons, 
and  are,  therefore,  collected  with  the  least  expense  and  they  have 
the  very  important  advantage  of  securing  to  domestic  industry  a 
preference  in  the  home  market.  In  other  words,  they  are  equal  as 
affects  citizens,  and  unequal  as  between  citizens  and  foreigners,  to 
the  amount  of  the  difference  between  the  imposts  and  an  excise  tax 
upon  the  same  kind  of  produce.  If  the  tax  was  equal  upon  domestic 
and  foreign  products,  then  foreigners  would  stand  upon  an  equality 
with  citizens  in  the  home  market,  while  citizens  probably  would  not 
stand  upon  an  equality  with  foreigners  in  their  own  market.”  p.  255. 

3P.  121,  Vol.  I.,  2nd  ed. 


« 


36  Daniel  Raymond  and  His  Work.  [246 

for  private  corporations,  “they  may  be  multiplied  indefi- 
nitely, without  detriment  to  the  public,  provided  they  are 
secured  against  the  depredations  of  stock  jobbers.”1  In 
1836,  he  writes,  “the  very  object  then  of  the  act  of  incorpora- 
tion is  to  produce  inequality,  either  in  rights  or  in  the  division 
of  property.”2  In  1840,  “the  only  effect  of  the  charter  of 
incorporation  is  to  make  unity  out  of  a multitude,  so  as  to 
enable  them  to  act  as  an  individual  in  one  name,  and  to  trans- 
fer and  transmit  their  property,  without  the  legal  impedi- 
ments and  hindrances  which  attend  partnership  transac- 
tions.”3 The  point  of  view  that  marks  the  editions  of  1820, 
1823,  and  1836,  is  very  far  from  the  one  that  characterizes 
the  edition  of  1840;  the  philosophy  of  a lifetime  suffers  vio- 
lent metamorphosis  within  four  years. 

As  would  be  expected  from  the  basis  of  his  system,  Ray- 
mond favors  a protective  system.  He  does  not,  as  would 
have  been  most  logical,  and  as  List  did  later,  develop  his 
protective  doctrine  directly  from  his  two  fundamental  con- 
cepts. He  was  too  much  haunted  by  the  spectre  of  Adam 
Smith,  and  too  much  possessed  by  the  idea  of  refuting  his 
system  point  by  point.  Instead,  therefore,  of  attempting  to 
build  up  a logical  and  consistent  system,  which  in  its  con- 
clusions should  stand  opposed  to  those  of  the  school  of 
Smith,  he  is  constantly  shifting  his  position  and  adapting 
his  arguments  to  the  purpose  of  refuting  Smith  specifically 
point  by  point.  He  denies  the  assumption  that  each  individ- 
ual in  seeking  his  own  interest  will  employ  his  capital  in  the 
way  most  beneficial  to  the  nation,  and  he  therefore  justifies 
governmental  restriction  on  the  ground  of  its  tending  to 
promote  the  welfare  of  the  nation  as  a whole. 

He  admits  as  a general  rule  that  if  a nation  can  buy  an 
article  cheaper  than  it  can  make  it,  it  is  better  to  buy  than  to 
make;  but  the  numerous  exceptions  to  this  rule  “will  em- 


AP.  275.  2P.  119,  2nd  ed.  3P.  275. 


247] 


Daniel  Raymond  and  His  JVork. 


37 


brace  the  policy  of  protecting  duties  to  as  great  an  extent, 
as  has  ever  been  contended  for  by  the  partisans  of  a restricted 
trade.”1  A protective  system  is  required  in  the  interest  of 
the  nation  as  a whole  in  order  to  give  constant  employment 
to  its  whole  labor  force.2  Further,  though  the  initial  cost  of 
producing  certain  articles  should  be  more  than  would  be 
required  to  purchase  them  abroad,  their  average  cost  of  pro- 
duction in  the  long  run  ought  to  be  taken  into  account  rather 
than  initial  cost.3 

A monopoly  of  the  home  market  produces  certainty  and 
stability  of  demand;4  it  increases  a nation’s  skill  in  the  arts 
and  sciences,  and  thus  increases  its  capacity  for  acquiring 
the  necessaries  and  comforts  of  life, — increases  national 
wealth.5  Unless  the  people  of  this  country  are  to  be  “re- 
duced to  the  necessity  of  working  as  hard  and  living  as  poor, 
as  the  English  laborers,”  a tariff  must  be  maintained  to  en- 
able our  manufacturers  to  compete  with  those  of  England  in 
a great  variety  of  articles.6  But  even  could  we  produce  as 
cheaply  as  England,  a tariff  would  still  be  required  to  prevent 
the  surplus  product  of  British  manufacture  from  being  irreg- 
ularly dumped  on  our  market  and  demoralizing  prices,  to 
the  destruction  of  our  home  manufactories.7 

A tariff  requires  constant  revision.  The  general  rule  is 
stated  that  “a  tariff  ought  not  to  be  reduced,  although  it  may 
frequently  require  to  be  raised;”  “and  it  should  be  lowest 
upon  those  articles  which  are  not,  or  cannot  be  produced  in 
this  country,  and  highest  upon  those  which  employ  the 
greatest  number  of  people,  or  the  greatest  portion  of  the  in- 
dustry of  - the  country.”8  Under  the  head  of  tariffs,  Ray- 
mond discusses  the  question  of  who  pays  the  duty.  By  a 
strictly  “a  priori”  process  of  reasoning  he  reaches  the  con- 


1P.  216.  2P.  218.  3P.  223.  4P.  224.  5P.  224.  6P.  225.  7P.  226. 

8P.  226. 


38  Daniel  Raymond  and  His  Work.  [248 

elusion  that  the  producer  and  consumer  share  between  them 
the  burden  of  the  tax.1 

In  conclusion  he  hurls  maledictions  at  slavery,  as  a moral 
blight  and  an  economic  curse.  It  acts  as  a check  on  popu- 
lation, and  thus  exerts  a pernicious  influence  on  national 
wealth  and  prosperity.  Legislation  must  devise  the  most 
effective  means  to  root  out  this  obstacle  to  national  pros- 
perity. 


1P.  231. 


CHAPTER  III. 


Genesis  of  Raymond’s  System. 

I. 

A brief  outline  of  Raymond’s  system  has  been  given.  How 
are  we  to  trace  its  genesis?  The  tendency  of  much  of  the 
economic  thought  in  this  country  in  Raymond’s  time  was 
plainly  begotten  of  hostility  towards  England  and  all  that 
was  English;  but  in  Raymond’s  case  there  is  no  justification 
whatever  for  the  statement  that  we  can  trace  his  inspiration 
to  this  source.1  On  the  contrary,  there  is  every  reason  to  be- 
lieve that  his  economic  views  were  the  natural  consequence 
of  a study  of  the  phenomena  that  confronted  him  on  every 
side.  He  did  not  adopt  his  principles  to  be  in  opposition 
to  Adam  Smith;  he  was  in  opposition  to  Adam  Smith  be- 
cause his  principles  landed  him  there.  He  was  confronted — 
and  deeply  impressed — by  a slave  power  grown  to  threaten- 
ing proportions,  and  bidding  fair  to  turn  backward  the  cur- 
rent of  national  prosperity;  he  had  seen  trade  wrecked  and 
industry  paralyzed  by  reckless  banking,  and  the  business 
community  powerless  to  protect  itself;  he  had  seen  great 
manufacturing  interests  grow  up  around  him — a source  of 


iRurber — p.  58,  of  his  Geschichte  und  kritische  Studien  zur  Ent- 
wickelung  der  Oekonomischen  Theorien  in  Amerika — says  that 
Raymond  was  not  free  from  the  hatred  of  England  so  prevalent  at 
that  time  in  this  country;  and  Cossa,  p.  465,  says,  ‘‘Daniel  Raymond, 
the  first  of  all  the  spokesmen  for  American  national  and  protective 
theories,  was  partly  inspired  to  his  utterance  of  them  by  animosity 
against  England.”  A careful  reading  of  Raymond’s  work  scarce- 
ly bears  out  Furber’s  statement;  and  as  for  Cossa,  he  could  hardly 
have  read  Raymond  at  all,  as  there  is,  in  fact,  not  a line  in  any  of  his 
four  editions  that  would  even  suggest  animosity  against  England  as 
the  motive  impelling  him  to  write  his  work.  On  the  contrary,  con- 
sidering the  time,  the  subject,  and  our  relations  towards  England, 
there  is  a most  marked  absence  in  Raymond  of  anything  savoring 
of  animosity  towards  England. 


40 


Genesis  of  Raymond' s System . 


[250 


power  and  wealth  to  the  nation — only  to  be  threatened  with 
annihilation  by  the  pent-up  flood  of  British  wares  that  del- 
uged the  country  after  the  return  of  peace  in  1815;  and  he, 
in  consequence,  began  to  entertain  doubts  as  to  the  wisdom 
and  practicability  of  a system  of  political  economy  that  ig- 
nored the  existence  of  national  boundaries,  assumed  for  its 
philosophy  “the  harmony  of  interests,”  and  preached  for  its 
gospel  laissez  faire.  He  thought  that  he  saw  a necessity 
for  governmental  restriction  to  check  the  selfish  and  short- 
sighted policy  of  individuals,  and  to  keep  the  nation  as  a 
whole  in  the  path  of  prosperity.  He  is  accordingly  led  to 
the  belief  that  the  prevailing  systems  of  political  economy 
are  not  adapted  to  the  circumstances  of  this  country;1  and 
he  sets  out  to  study  our  peculiar  conditions,  and  to  develop 
a system  of  political  economy  that  will  harmonize  with  the 
observed  facts  of  our  economic  life,  and  serve  to  light  the 
way  for  legislation  beneficial  to  American  interests. 

Around  him  he  saw  a young  country  with  undeveloped 
resources  that  dazzled  the  imagination,  and  in  which  it  was 
emphatically  true  that  power  was  wealth.  Its  wealth  and 
prosperity  could  not  be  gauged  by  the  same  standards  as 
would  individual  wealth  and  prosperity.  An  individual 
who  steadily  buys  more  than  he  sells  is  supposed  to  be  on  the 
road  to  poverty;  but  here  was  a nation,  here  were  common- 
wealths, that  for  decades  had  bought  more  than  they  sold, 
and  which  were  yet  recognized  as  increasing  in  real  wealth 
out  of  all  proportion  to  their  accumulating  debts.2  Even  in 
popular  parlance,  not  the  stock  of  the  country,  but  its  pro- 
ductive capacity  was  regarded  as  the  evidence  of  its  wealth 
and  progress.  Raymond  came  thus  naturally  to  his  char- 
acteristic concept  of  national  wealth. 

His  sympathy  rests  with  what  we  term  the  masses.  These 
he  believes  to  have  been  ignored  in  former  treatises  profess- 
ing to  be  concerned  with  the  nation's  wealth  ;3  and  in  his  sys- 
tem he  desires  to  take  account  of  them  and  their  interests. 


XP.  5,  1st  ed.  2P.  129.  3P.  43,  2nd  ed. 


251] 


Genesis  of  Raymond*  s System. 


41 


He  was  a lawyer,  and  his  legal  habit  of  mind  leads  him  to 
conceive  the  state  as  a corporation,1  and  gives  him  a formula 
that  fits  his  need.  Thus  he  comes  to  his  second  basic  con- 
cept of  a nation  as  an  organic  unity,  composed  of  all  its  citi- 
zens alike,  “a  unity  of  rights,  interests  and  possessions.” 

A study  of  Raymond’s  work,  then,  suggests  environment 
and  training  as  the  sources  of  his  fundamental  concepts, 
rather  than  hostility  towards  England. 

As  for  the  rest,  he  is  lacking  in  method.  He  is  partly  de- 
ductive, partly  inductive;  but  neither  consistent  nor  dis- 
criminating in  the  use  of  either  method.  He  studies  condi- 
tions as  they  confront  him,  but  his  inferences  are  often  col- 
ored to  a degree  by  his  prepossessions.  He  rejects  Adam 
Smith’s  principle  that  the  individual  in  seeking  out  his  own 
best  interests  necessarily  advances  the  interests  of  society, 
because  it  will  not  square  with  the  facts  standing  out  in  bold 
relief  in  American  economic  life.  But  despite  the  benefits 
that  a community  may  derive  from  “money  corporations,” 
he  condemns  them  indiscriminately  because  they  are  op- 
posed in  principle  to  his  social  philosophy  that  the  natural 
equality  of  man  is  to  be  preserved  as  far  as  possible  in  civil 
society.  He  argues  against  the  doctrine  of  augmenting  na- 
tional wealth  by  accumulation,  because  he  conceives  the  law 
of  nature  to  be  that  production  should  only  keep  pace  with 
consumption ; nature  antagonizes  the  storing  up  of  her  fruits ; 
and  the  story  of  the  Hebrews  and  the  manna  in  the  desert  is 
for  him  a conclusive  exemplification  of  the  operation  of  this 
law.2  “In  the  sweat  of  thy  face  shaft  thou  eat  bread,”3  he 
erects  into  a scientific  formula,  and  makes  it  serve  as  a basis 
for  deductions.  He  even  inclines  to  allow  his  strong  human 
feeling  and  his  sense  of  Providence  to  supply  the  place  of 
analysis  and  logic.4 

The  strong  sense  of  personality,  the  warm  human  sympa- 
thy, the  realization  that  man,  not  matter,  is  the  subject  of  his 

*P.  272.  2P.  103.  3P.  70. 

4“Mr.  Malthus’  theory  of  population  is  certainly  ingenuous  and 
plausible,  and  for  the  most  part  sound,  although  it  is  calculated  to 


42 


Influence  of  Lauderdale. 


[252 


study,  that  wealth  is  a means,  not  an  end,  that  his  science  is 
human,  not  mechanical, — these  things  stand  out  in  Ray- 
mond in  contradistinction  to  the  cold  formalism,  the  chilling 
abstractness  of  the  classic  economics  of  that  day, — and  al- 
most make  one  forgiving  toward  serious  lapses  from  scien- 
tific method. 


II. 

Raymond  seems  to  have  been  familiar  with  Adam  Smith, 
Malthus,  Ricardo,  Lauderdale,  Ganilh  and  J.  B.  Say.* 1  The 
system,  of  the  Physiocrats  he  knew  only  partially,  and  at 
second  hand.2 

He  is  in  opposition  to  the  system  of  Adam  Smith  at  nearly 
every  point,  and  his  criticism  of  Smith — especially  in  his 
first  edition — is  narrow  and  harsh.  Say  he  rates  as  inferior 


leave  very  erroneous  impressions  on  the  mind  of  the  reader,  in  con- 
sequence of  his  not  having  treated  the  subject  in  conjunction  with 
others  with  which  it  is  necessarily  connected.  Although  his  theory 
is  founded  upon  the  principles  of  nature,  and  although  it  is  impos- 
sible to  discover  any  flaw  in  his  reasoning,  yet  the  mind  instinctively 
revolts  at  the  conclusions  to  which  he  conducts  it,  and  we  are  dis- 
posed to  reject  the  theory,  even  though  we  could  give  no  good  rea- 
son for  rejecting  it.”  p.  273,  1st  ed. 

1Raymond  had  not  read  Say  when  he  published  his  first  edition  in 
1820,  for  Say  had  not  then  been  translated  in  this  country,  and  Ray- 
mond in  his  second  edition — (V.  I.,  p.  174), — says  he  has  read  Say 
only  in  the  translation.  But  reading  Say  does  not  appear  to  have 
modified  any  of  Raymond’s  views. 

2 Raymond,  in  several  places,  refers  directly  to  the  Physiocrats  in 
a way  that  would  suggest  an  acquaintance  with  them,  and  this  im- 
pression is  confirmed  by  the  reference  in  his  second  edition — (V.  I., 
p.  97) — of  a quotation  direct  to  “Physiocratie,  p.  107.”  The  quota- 
tion, however,  is  taken  at  second  hand,  from  Lauderdale,  p.  125,  and 
not  directly  from  “Physiocratie,”  as  would  seem.  In  his  first  edi- 


253] 


Influence  of  Lauderdale. 


43 


to  both  Adam  Smith  and  Malthus.1  Of  Malthus  he  appears 
to  have  a favorable  estimate,  and  several  times  quotes  him 
approvingly.2  Of  Ricardo  he  expresses  no  opinion ; he  re- 
fers to  him  in  the  chapter  on  taxation,  only  to  refute  him. 

Lauderdale  is  undoubtedly  the  author  who  exerted  the 
most  influence  upon  Raymond.  The  general  plan  of  Ray- 
mond’s treatise  is  somewhat  similar  to  that  of  Lauderdale, — 
first,  an  inquiry  into  the  concept  of  wealth,  its  cause,  and  its 
source,  and  then  a discussion  of  the  means  by  which  na- 
tional wealth  may  be  promoted.3 

Raymond  follows  Lauderdale  in  distinguishing  individual 
from  national  wealth,  and,  like  him,  makes  this  the  basic 
principle  upon  which  he  erects  his  system.  He  says  that 
Lauderdale  is  the  only  writer  known  to  him  who  makes  this 
distinction  ;4  and  it  is  most  probable  that  it  was  this  distinc- 
tion of  Lauderdale  that  first  led  Raymond  to  seek  in  a new 
concept  of  national  wealth  the  basis  for  what  seemed  to  him 
the  true  system  of  political  economy.5  But  Raymond  does 
not  appropriate  Lauderdale’s  idea  bodily;  he  gets  from  it  no 
more  than  a suggestion  as  to  the  lines  along  which  study 
may  profitably  be  made.6 


tion,  p.  92,  he  says  in  a foot  note  that  he  has  never  read  any  of  the 
writings  of  the  Physiocrats,  his  only  knowledge  of  their  theories  be- 
ing “derived  from  Smith,  Ganilh,  and  others,  who  have  combatted 
their  theories.” 

. . . in  comprehensiveness  of  views,  and  in  the  powers  of 

reasoning,  M.  Say  is  vastly  inferior,  both  to  Adam  Smith  and  Mal- 
thus.” P.  173,  2nd  ed. 

2Pp.  129,  169;  V.  I.,  p.  354;  V.  II.,  2nd  ed. 

3Comp.  Raymond,  pp.  3-4,  Vol.  II.,  2nd  ed.,  and  Lauderdale,  in- 
troduction. 

4“Lord  Lauderdale  is,  I believe,  the  only  writer  on  political  econ- 
omy, who  has  attempted  to  distinguish  national  from  individual 
wealth.”  P.  174,  2nd  ed. 

5“His  lordship,  however,  deserves  great  credit  for  having  sug- 
gested the  fundamental  principles  of  the  science,  although  he  failed 
in  stating  it  with  precision.” 

6“But  although  the  noble  earl  was  impressed  with  an  idea  of  the 
existence  of  such  a distinction  in  the  nature  of  things,  and  the  neces- 


44 


Influence  of  Lauderdale. 


[254 


The  distinction  which  Raymond  makes  between  national 
and  individual  wealth  is  his  own,  not  Lauderdale’s.  The 
basis  on  which  the  distinction  rests  is  very  different  in  the 
two  writers.  Lauderdale  makes  no  specific  difference  be- 
tween the  things  that  go  to  constitute  individual  riches  and 
those  that  go  to  constitute  public  wealth.  He  makes  pub- 
lic wealth  “to  consist  of  all  that  man  desires  as  useful  or  de- 
lightful to  him;”  and  private  riches  “to  consist  of  all  that 
man  desires  as  useful  or  delightful  to  him;  which  exists  in  a 
degree  of  scarcity.”1  Thus,  the  objects  that  enter  into  the 
two  categories  are  only  differentiated  by  the  accidental  at- 
tribute, scarcity;  there  is  no  essential  difference  in  the  things 
themselves.  Any  object  that  is  embraced  under  either  cat- 
egory,  is  capable  of  being  embraced  under  the  other.  Pub- 
lic wealth  is  in  reality  only  a slightly  more  generic  concept 
than  individual  riches,  and  anything  included  under  it  can 
be  included  also  under  the  less  extensive  concept,  individual 
riches,  by  simply  coming  to  exist  in  a degree  of  scarcity. 

Raymond,  on  the  contrary,  founds  the  main  difference  be- 
tween the  concepts  of  individual  wealth  and  national  wealth 
upon  a radical  and  essential  difference  in  the  nature  of  the 
things  that  are  embraced  under  the  two  concepts.  To  him 
individual  wealth  means  “the  possession  of  property,  for  the 
use  of  which,  the  owner  can  obtain  a quantity  of  the  neces- 
saries and  comforts  of  life.”2  The  term  property  “includes 
lands,  goods,  money,  and  stock,”  and  “the  value  of  these 
that  an  individual  possesses,  ascertains  the  amount  of  his 

sity  of  pointing  it  out,  and  establishing  it  as  the  basis  of  the  science, 
yet  he  has  utterly  failed  in  his  attempts  to  ascertain  in  what  this 
distinction  consists.  ' P.  175,  2nd  ed. 

“Although  Lord  Lauderdale  had  conceived  some  indistinct  notion 
of  the  difference  between  national  and  individual  wealth,  yet  as  he 
did  not  preserve  the  unity  of  the  nation,  and  a consequent  unity  of 
its  interests,  he  did  not  succeed  in  establishing  the  distinction  he  had 
imperfectly  conceived.” 

x“An  Inquiry  into  the  Nature  and  Causes  of  Public  Wealth.”  Pp. 
56-7. 

2P.  77- 


255] 


Influence  of  Lauderdale. 


45 


wealth.”  Individual  wealth  is  thus  made  to  consist  of  com- 
modities; value  is  its  measure ; and  exchange-ability  its  dis- 
tinguishing characteristic. 

National  wealth  is  something  quite  different  from  this. 
It  is  defined,  a capacity  for  acquiring,  by  labor,  the  neces- 
saries and  comforts  of  life.  It  is  thus  made  to  consist,  not 
of  objective  goods,  but  of  forces,  of  labor  power.  The  two 
concepts  are  generically  different.  The  things  embraced 
under  the  concept  of  national  wealth  could  not  possibly  be 
made  to  come  under  the  category  of  individual  wealth. 

With  Lauderdale,  water,  for  example,  is  public  wealth, 
and  it  may  also  be  made  to  come  under  the  term  private 
wealth,  if  it  become  so  diminished  in  quantity  as  to  exist  in 
a degree  of  scarcity.  But  with  Raymond,  the  labor  power, 
the  energy,  and  the  habits  of  the  community  constitute  ele- 
ments in  its  national  wealth;  and  these  can  not  be  brought 
under  his  concept  of  private  wealth. 

While  Raymond  and  Lauderdale  are  thus  similar  in  that 
they  both  distinguish  public  from  private  wealth,  there  is  no 
similarity  in  the  distinctions  themselves  which  they  make. 
Raymond’s  concept  of  national  wealth  bears  no  trace  of  sim- 
ilarity to  that  of  Lauderdale.  There  is  nothing  in  Lauder- 
dale to  furnish  even  a suggestion  of  such  a definition  of 
national  wealth  as  Raymond  gives ; and  his  system  thus  ap- 
pears to  be  based  upon  an  original,  and  not  upon  a borrowed 
idea. 

So  too  in  attacking  the  thesis  of  Adam  Smith,  that  “par- 
simony and  not  industry  is  the  immediate  cause  of  the  in- 
crease of  capital,”  Raymond  is  found  sustaining  the  same 
theory  as  Lauderdale;  but  again  his  arguments  are  other 
than  Lauderdale’s,  and  seem  to  have  been  in  no  way  derived 
from  him. 

It  may  be  again  repeated,  that  in  these  cases  the  influence 
of  American  conditions  and  of  the  phenomena  here  con- 
fronting Raymond  appear  as  more  potent  factors  in  deter- 
mining his  conclusions  than  do  the  theories  or  arguments 
of  Lauderdale. 


CHAPTER  IV. 


Daniel  Raymond  and  Friederich  List. 

There  is  a striking  similarity  at  bottom  between  Ray- 
mond’s theories  and  “The  National  System  of  Political 
Economy”  developed  by  Friederich  List. 

It  is  not  too  much  to  say  that  not  only  is  the  germ  of 
List’s  system  to  be  found  in  Raymond,  but  that  a very  con- 
siderable development  is  to  be  found  scattered  through  his 
eight  hundred  and  odd  pages.1  The  theory  is  not  developed 
by  Raymond  with  anything  like  the  elaboration  and  con- 
tinuity that  characterize  List’s  treatment  of  it.  But  it  will 
be  recalled  that  Raymond  was  only  a political  economist 
incidentally;  a lawyer  to  whom  the  public  permitted  too 
many  moments  of  leisure  to  be  whiled  away  in  the  conning 
of  musty  tomes;  who  sought  diversion  in  putting  on  paper 
some  of  his  thoughts  on  economics ; and  who  wrote,  accord- 
ingly, rather  for  his  own  amusement  than  for  the  public. 
It  will  be  remembered  also  that  during  the  twenty  years  in- 
tervening between  the  first  edition  of  his  work  and  the  last 
one,  his  system  received  at  his  hands  no  modification  or  de- 
velopment worthy  of  note.  It  remained  what  it  was  at  first, 
the  initial  product  of  a comparatively  young  man,  who,  by 
way  of  change,  devoted  himself  for  a short  period  to  eco- 
nomic study.  List’s  system,  on  the  contrary,  represents  the 
labors  of  a professed  economist,  who  for  twenty  years  de- 
voted himself  earnestly  to  the  study  of  economic  phenom- 
ena, and  to  the  construction  of  his  economic  system. 

It  is  not,  therefore,  to  be  expected  that  Raymond’s  system 
should  have  received  the  same  degree  of  development  as  did 
List’s.  But  it  is  contended  here  that  in  Raymond’s  “Thoughts 


1This  refers  to  his  second  edition. 


257]  Daniel  Raymond  and  Friederich  List. 


47 


on  Political  Economy/’  published  in  1820,  and  in  his  slightly 
elaborated  “Elements  of  Political  Economy,”  published  in 
1823,  are  to  be  found  enunciated  the  fundamental  principles 
that  List  takes  as  the  basis  for  his  “Outlines  of  American 
Political  Economy,”  1827,  and  of  his  elaborated  and  more 
complete  work,  “The  National  System  of  Political  Econ- 
omy,” 1841. 

A comparison  of  the  works1  of  Raymond  and  of  List  will 
show  that  the  following  fundamental  theses  are  common  to 
both.2 

The  dominant  school  of  economists,  Adam  Smith  and  his 
disciples,  has  not  distinguished  between  private  and  public 
economy , and  has , therefore , treated  of  the  economy  of  in- 
dividuals rather  than  of  political , or  national  economy . 


List. 

“The  component  parts  of  po- 
litical economy  are,  individual 
economy,  national  economy, 
and  the  economy  of  mankind.” 

“Adam  Smith  treats  of  the 
economy  of  mankind  and  for- 
gets to  treat  of  the  wealth  of 


Raymond. 

“As  national  wealth  is  a dis- 
tinct thing  from  individual 
wealth,  so  political  economy  is  a 
distinct  thing  from  private  econ- 
omy.” P.  406. 

“The  fundamental  error,  as  I 
apprehend,  into  which  Adam 
Smith  and  most  other  writers 


xUnless  otherwise  stated,  the  references  by  pages  in  the  parallel 
quotations  are  to  Raymond’s  Elements  of  Political  Economy,  1823, 
and  to  Lloyd’s  translation  of  “The  National  System  of  Political 
Economy,”  London,  1885.  The  references  to  “letters”  of  List 
are  to  the  letters  that  make  up  his  “Outlines  of  American  Political 
Economy,”  Phila.,  1827. 

2Despite  a specious  appearance  of  method  and  logical  arrangement 
List’s  work  is  rambling  and  diffuse;  and  Raymond  is  prolix  to  a 
degree,  and  hopelessly  wanting  in  a methodical  development  of  his 
system.  A brief  comparison  of  their  two  systems  is,  consequently, 
difficult,  and  bound  to  be  more  or  less  unsatisfactory.  An  attempt  is 
made  in  what  follows  to  present  in  concise  theses  the  fundamental 
principles  that  underlie  List’s  system,  and  in  something  like  the 
order  of  his  development  of  them,  and  to  show  the  similarity  of 
Raymond’s  theories  by  selected  extracts  bearing  upon  the  same 
points. 


48 


Daniel  Raymond  and  Friederich  List. 


nations “his  book  is  a 

mere  treatise  on  the  question  of 
how  the  economy  of  individuals 
and  of  mankind  would  stand,  if 
the  human  race  were  not  sepa- 
rated into  nations,  but  united  by 
a general  law  and  by  an  equal 
culture  of  mind.”  Letter  i. 


[258 

have  fallen,  . . . is  their 

not  having  distinguished  be- 
tween public  and  private 
wealth.”  P.  155. 

“Instead  of  treating  of  public 
economy  they  in  fact  treat  of 
private  economy;  instead  of 
talking  about  nations  they  talk 
about  individuals.”  P.  139. 

“We  must  be  careful  to  keep 
in  mind  the  distinct  notion  of 
a nation  itself,  and  not  confound 
it  with  the  individuals  or  any 
portioa  of  the  individuals  of 
which  that  nation  is  composed; 
a thing  that  is  often  done  by  the 
best  writers  on  political  econo- 
my. It  is,  indeed,  the  prevail- 
ing error  of  every  writer  on  the 
subject  I have  read.  Whilst 
they  profess  to  treat  of  national 
interests,  they  depart  from  the 
subject  and  treat  of  individual 
interests.”  P.  34. 

“M.  Say’s  work  is  liable  to  the 
objection  of  being  a partial  in- 
stead of  a general  treatise  on 
political  economy.  It  treats 
rather  of  private  than  of  public 
wealth.”  P.  173. 


The  school  of  Adam  Smith  further  fails  to  distinguish  the 
interests  of  a nation  from  the  general  interests  of  the  race , 
and  its  doctrines  are  therefore  too  cosmopolitical  to  admit  of 
application  in  present  actual  conditio?is. 


List. 

“If  the  whole  globe  were  unit- 
ed by  a union  like  the  twenty- 
four  States  of  North  America, 
free  trade  would  be  quite  as 
natural  and  as  beneficial  as  it  is 
now  in  the  Union.” 

“There  would  be  no  reason 
for  separating,  the  interest  of  a 


Raymond. 

“If  governments  could  be  ad- 
ministered upon  the  perfect 
principles  of  universal  philan- 
thropy, perhaps  a nation  might 
be  required  to  forego  an  advan- 
tage to  itself,  upon  the  ground 
that  the  interests  of  other  na- 
tions required  it,  although  even 


49 


259] 


Daniel  Raymond  and  Friederich  List. 


then  it  would  be  doubtful;  for 
those  principles,  by  such  expan- 
sion, become  so  dissipated,  as  to 
have  no  efficacy  or  power,  and 
the  old  adage,  ‘charity  begins  at 
home,’  is,  no  doubt,  the  best 
commentary  that  ever  was  writ- 
ten upon  the  doctrines  of  uni- 
versal philanthropy. 

“But  at  any  rate,  in  the  pres- 
ent state  of  the  world,  it  would 
be  chimerical  to  the  last  degree 
for  a political  economist  to  dis- 
cuss the  question,  how  far  a na- 
tion should  be  governed  in  its 
policy  towards  other  nations,  by 
the  principles  of  universal  phi- 
lanthropy. At  present  the  du- 
ties of  government  extend  no 
further  than  the  protection  of 
its  own  citizens,  and  the  promo- 
tion of  its  own  national  wealth; 
and  any  chimerical  notions  of 
universal  philanthropy,  which 
carry  the  duty  of  a government 
to  the  superintendence,  or  con- 
sideration even,  of  the  interests 
to  the  citizens  of  a foreign  coun- 
try are  as  unwise  as  they  are 
impracticable.”  P.  166,  V.  II. 

The  school  of  Adam  Smith  assumes  that  the  interests  of 
the  individual  and  of  society  are  identical;  that  the  individ- 
ual best  knows  his  own  interests,  and,  if  allowed  to  pursue 
his  own  interests  in  his  own  way,  will  necessarily  further  the 
interests  of  society.  But  this  assumption  is  without  war- 
rant; the  immediate  interests  of  the  individual  and  of  society 
are  often  at  variance;  aud  the  temporary  interests  of  the 
individual  seldom  ever  harmonize  with  the  permanent  inter- 
ests of  society . 

List.  Raymond. 

“ ‘What  is  prudence  in  the  “It  seems  to  be  an  admitted 

conduct  of  every  private  family/  dogma  with  Doctor  Smith  that 

says  Adam  Smith,  ‘can  scarcely  national  and  individual  interests 


certain  space  of  land  and  of  a 
certain  number  of  human  be- 
ings from  the  interests  of  the 
whole  globe  and  the  whole  race 

“There  would  be  no  national 
interest.  . . . 

“This  state  of  things  may  be 
very  desirable, — it  may  do  honor 
to  the  heart  of  a philosopher  to 
wish  for  it, — it  may  even  lie  in 
the  great  plan  of  Providence  to 
accomplish  it  in  after  ages.  But 
it  is  not  the  state  of  the  actual 
world. 

“Adam  Smith’s  system,  in  the 
world’s  present  condition,  goes 
therefore  along  with  the  good 
Abbe  St.  Pierre’s  dreams  of 
eternal  peace,  with  the  systems 
of  those  who  fancy  the  laws  of 
nations.”  Let.  i. 

“Cosmopolitan  institutions  . 
. . . are  not  yet  ripe  for  be- 
ing introduced  into  practice.” 
Let.  II. 


50 


Daniel  Raymond  and  Friederich  List. 


be  folly  in  that  of  a great  king- 
dom/ Every  individual  in  pur- 
suing his  own  interests  neces- 
sarily promotes  thereby  also  the 
interests  of  the  community.  It 
is  evident  that  every  individual 
inasmuch  as  he  knows  his  own 
local  circumstances  best  and 
pays  most  attention  to  his  occu- 
pation, is  far  better  able  to  judged 
than  the  statesman  or  legislator 
how  his  capital  can  most  profit- 
ably be  employed.”  P.  162. 

“Is  the  wisdom  of  private 
economy  also  wisdom  in  na- 
tional economy?  Is  it  in  the 
nature  of  individuals  to  take  into 
consideration  the  wants  of  fu- 
ture centuries,  as  those  concern 
the  nature  of  the  nation  and  the 
State?  Let  us  consider  only  the 
beginning  of  an  American  town; 
every  individual  left  to  himself 
would  care  merely  for  his  own 
wants,  or  at  most  for  those  of 
his  nearest  successors,  whereas 
all  individuals  united  in  one 
community  provide  for  the  con-*, 
venience  and  the  wants  of  the 
most  distant  generations;  they 
subject  the  present  generation 
for  this  object  to  privations  and 
sacrifices  which  no  reasonable 
person  could  expect  from  indi- 
viduals.” P.  165. 

“Nor  does  the  individual 
merely  by  understanding  his 
own  interests  best,  and  by  striv- 
ing to  further  them,  if  left  to  his 
own  devices,  always  further  the 
interests  of  the  community.  We 
ask  those  who  occupy  the 
benches  of  justice,  whether  they 
do  not  have  to  send  individuals 
to  the  tread-mill  on  account  of 


[260 

are  never  opposed,  but  a more 
unsound  doctrine  in  principle, 
or  a more  abominable  one  in  its 
consequences  can  not  well  be 
imagined.”  P.  215,  V.  II. 

“Public  and  private  interests 
are  often  directly  at  variance.” 
P.  220. 

“Private  citizens  can  only  be 
expected  to  be  wise  for  them- 
selves— it  is  not  their  duty  to 
look  after  the  public  interests — 
they  are  not  the  conservators  of 
national  wealth.  This  belongs 
to  the  department  of  legislation. 
If,  from  particular  circumstan- 
ces, . . . one  species  of  in- 

dustry is  more  profitable  than 
another,  it  must  be  expected 
that  individuals  will  embark  in 
it,  without  any  regard  to  the  evil 
consequences  it  may  produce  to 
succeeding  generations;  but  it 
does  not  become  a legislator, 
either  to  be  blind  to  their  con- 
sequences, or  not  to  guard 
against  them.  ...  No  man 
can  be  expected  to  forego  a 
present  advantage  to  himself, 
provided  there  is  no  immoral- 
ity in  the  enjoyment  of  it,  upon 
the  ground  that  it  may  be  preju- 
dicial to  posterity.  He  may 
have  no  posterity,  or  if  he  has, 
their  interests  at  the  distance  of 
two  or  three  generations,  are 
too  remote  to  influence  his  con- 
duct. The  influence  of  self-' 
interest  on  human  conduct,  like 
the  laws  of  gravitation,  is  in  the 
inverse  compound  ratio  of  dis- 
tance and  quantity. 

“Legislators,  however,  are  not 
permitted  to  take  such  limited 
short-sighted  views  of  things,  . 


261]  Daniel  Raymond  and  Friederich  List. 


51 


their  excess  of  inventive  power 
and  of  their  all  too  great  indus- 
try. Robbers,  thieves,  smug- 
glers and  cheats  know  their  own 
local  and  personal  circumstan- 
ces and  conditions  extremely 
well,  and  pay  the  most  active  at- 
tention to  their  business;  but  it 
by  no  means  follows  therefrom 
that  society  is  in  the  best  condi- 
tion where  such  individuals  are 
least  restrained  in  the  exercise 
of  their  private  industry.  In  a 
thousand  cases  the  power  of  the 
State  is  compelled  to  impose  re- 
strictions on  private  industry.  It 
prevents  the  shipowner  from 
taking  on  board  slaves  on  the 
west  coast  of  Africa,  and  taking 
them  over  to  America.”  P.  166. 


they  are  traitors  to 

their  high  trust,  if  they  do  not 
look  to  the  future  as  well  as  to 
the  present.  Even  according  to 
the  laws  of  self-interest,  the  re- 
moteness of  the  interests  of  fu- 
ture generations,  should  be 
counterbalanced  by  the  magni- 
tude of  those  interests.”  P. 
222. 

“As  a general  rule  individuals 
understand  the  management  of 
their  own  affairs  and  the  art  of 
getting  rich  better  than  any  phi- 
losopher can  teach  them.”  P. 
156. 

“An  individual  may  study  his 
own  advantage  by  smuggling 
goods,  but  it  will  hardly  be  pre- 
tended that  that  is  ‘an  employ- 
ment most  advantageous  to  the 
society,’  or  nation.  An  indi- 
vidual may  study  his  own  pri- 
vate advantage  by  employing  his 
capital  in  the  slave  trade,  but  he 
would  not  thereby  study  the  ad- 
vantage of  the  nation.”  P.  214, 
V.  II. 


A true  system  of  political  economy  cannot  ignore  the  ex- 
istence of  separate  nations. 

Each  nation  is  to  be  regarded  as  an  organic  unity ; im- 
perishable; having  national  interests  separate  and  distinct 
from;  often  opposed  to;  and  always  paramount  to,  the  pri- 
vate interests  of  individual  citizens  on  the  one  hand,  and 
to  the  interests  of  other  nations , or  of  the  race  in  general, 
on  the  other. 


List. 

“We  have  proved  historically 
that  the  unity  of  the  nation 
forms  the  fundamental  condition 


Raymond. 

“A  nation  is  as  much  a unity 
as  an  individual,  and  must  al- 
ways be  so  considered,  when 


WIV£R$I 


Library 


52 


Daniel  Baymond  and  Friederich  List. 


of  lasting  national  prosperity; 


and  we  have  shown  that  only 
where  the  interest  of  individuals 
has  been  subordinated  to  those 
of  the  nation,  and  where  suc- 
cessive generations  have  striv- 
en for  one  and  the  same  object, 
the  nations  have  been  brought 
to  harmonious  development  of 
their  productive  powers,  and 
how  little  private  industry  can 
prosper  without  the  united  ef- 
forts both  of  the  individuals  who 
are  living  at  the  time,  and  of 
successive  generations  directed 
to  one  common  object  . P. 
163. 

“A  nation  is  ...  a sep- 
arate society  of  individuals, who, 

possessing  common  govern- 
ment, common  laws,  rights,  in- 
stitutions, interests,  common 
history  and  glory,  common  de- 
fense and  security  of  their  rights, 
riches  and  lives,  constitute  one 
body,  free  and  independent, 

following  only  the  dictates  of  its 
interests,  as  regards  other  inde- 
pendent bodies,  and 

possessing  power  to  regulate  the 
interests  of  the  individuals  con- 
stituting that  body,  in  order  to' 
create  the  greatest  quantity  of 


[262 

treating  of  national  interests.” 
P.  44- 

“ A nation  is  one,  and  indi- 
visible; and  every  true  system 
of  political  economy  must  be 
built  upon  this  idea,  as  its  fun- 
damental principle.”  P.  44. 

“When  (public  and  private  in- 
terests are)  at  variance,  it  is 
not  to  be  made  a question  which 
ought  to  prevail.”  P.  220. 

“What  is  true  as  it  respects 
the  duty  of  government,  in  re- 
gard to  the  slave  trade  so  far  as 
national  interests  alone  are  con- 
cerned, is  true  of  every  other 
measure  relating  to  national  in- 
dustry, which  has  a remote  ten- 
dency to  affect  national  wealth 
and  prosperity.  The  true  pol- 
icy for  every  wise  legislator  is,  to 
consider  the  nation  immortal, 
and  to  legislate  for  it,  as  though 
it  was  to  exist  forever.”  P.  224. 

“A  nation  is  an  artificial  being 
or  a legal  entity,  composed  of 
millions  of  natural  beings.”  P. 
35- 

“A  nation  is  a unity,  and  pos- 
sesses all  the  properties  of  unity. 
It  possesses  a unity  of  rights,  a 
unity  of  interests  and  a unity  of 
possessions.”  P.  35. 


“Every  nation  is  to  consult  its 
own  interests  exclusively,  with- 
out any  regard  to  the  interests 
of  other  nations.  P.  166,  V.  II. 

“The  internal  policy  of  a na- 
tion, ....  should  be  mod- 
eled with  a view  to  the  general 
good.  The  welfare  of  the  many 


53 


263]  Daniel  Raymond  and  Friederich  List. 


common  welfare  in  the  interior, 
and  the  greatest  quantity  of  se- 
curity as  regards  other  nations.” 
Let.  II. 

“As  individual  liberty  is  in 
general  a good  thing  so  long 
only  as  it  does  not  run  counter 
to  the  interests  of  society,  so  is 
it  reasonable  to  hold  that  private 
interests  can  only  lay  claim  to 
unrestrained  action  so  long  as 
the  latter  consists  with  the  well- 
being of  the  nation.  But  when- 
ever the  enterprise  and  activity 
of  individuals  does  not  suffice 
for  this  purpose,  or  in  any  case 
where  these  might  become  in- 
jurious to  the  nation,  there  does 
private  industry  rightly  require 
support  from  the  whole  power 
of  the  nation,  then  ought  it  for* 
the  sake  of  its  own  interests  to 
submit  to  legal  restrictions.”  P. 
172. 

“The  State  is  not  merely  jus- 
tified in  imposing,  but  bound  to 
impose  certain  regulations  and 
restrictions  upon  commerce, 
(which  is  in  itself  harmless)  for 
the  best  interests  of  the  nation.”, 
P.  167.  j 


should  never  be  sacrificed  to  that 
of  the  few.”  P.  166,  V.  II. 


“The  citizens  should  have  as 
much  liberty  as  is  consistent 
with  the  good  of  the  nation.  To 
deprive  him  of  this  would  be  a 
tyranny.  More  than  this  he 
ought  not  to  claim.”  P.  202, 
V.  II. 

“No  citizen  should  have  a 
right  or  an  interest  opposed  to 
the  general  good  of  the  nation.” 
P.  201,  V.  II. 

“The  question  whether  indi- 
viduals should  be  permitted  to 
sell,  where  they  can  sell  dearest, 
and  buy  where  they  can  buy 
cheapest,  ought  not  to  be  decided 
upon  the  narrow,  contemptible 
principles  of  private  interests, 
but  upon  the  more  expanded 
and  noble  precepts  of  public  in- 
terests.” P.  22u. 

“It  is  ever  to  be  remembered 
trat  the  public  interests  are  para- 
mount to  individual  interests — 
that  a private  mischief  or  incon- 
venience must  be  endured  for 
the  public  good;  and  that  when 
a political  economist  has  shown 
that  public  and  private  interests 
are  opposed,  he  has  made  out  a 
case  in  which  the  interposition 
of  the  government  is  necessary 
— he  cannot  be  required  to  prove 
that  private  interests  ought  to 
give  way — that  is  to  be  taken  for 
granted.”  P.  201,  V.  II. 

In  contradistinction , therefore , to  private  or  individual 
economy , and  to  cosmopolitical  economy , or  the  economy  of 
mankind there  is  a national  economy , arising  out  of  the 
fact  of  the  existence  of  separate  nations. 

Each  nation,  according  to  its  circumstances , has  its  own 
particular  system  of  national  economy;  and  it  is  the  province 


54 


Daniel  Raymond  and  Friederich  List.  [264 

of  a national  economy  to  point  out  the  means  by  which  a 
nation  may  raise  itself  to  the  highest  point  of  national  pros- 
perity and  power . 


List. 

“To  complete  the  science,  we 
must  add  the  principles  of  na- 
tional economy.  The  idea  of 
national  economy  arises  with 
the  idea  of  nations.”  Let.  II. 

“National  economy  teaches 
how  a certain  nation  in  her  par- 
ticular situation  may  direct  and 
regulate  the  economy  of  indi- 
viduals, and  restrict  the  econo- 
my of  mankind;  i.  e.,  how,  in 
the  absence  of  a lawful  state  in- 
cluding the  whole  earth,  to  cre- 
ate a world  in  itself,  in  order  to 
grow  in  power  and  wealth,  to 
be  one  of  the  most  powerful, 
wealthy,  and  perfect  nations  of 
the  earth.”  Let.  II. 

“In  political  economy  there 
must  be  as  much  politics  as 
economy.”  Let.  II. 


Raymond. 

“Foreign  theories  and  sys- 
tems of  political  economy,  from 
the  dissimilarity  in  the  nature  of 
the  governments,  are  altogether 
unsuited  to  our  country.”  P. 
5,  ist  ed. 

“Political  economy  is  a sci- 
ence which  teaches  the  nature 
of  public  or  national  wealth.  . 
. . It  professes  to  teach  the 

most  effectual  means  of  promo- 
ting a nation’s  wealth  and  hap- 
piness, and  it  embraces  every 
subject  which  has  a tendency  to 
promote  them.”  P.  9. 

“It  belongs  to  the  department 
of  the  political  economist  to  as- 
certain the  operation  of  politi- 
cal institutions,  and  when  they 
are  found  defective,  or  prejudi- 
cial, to  point  out  the  proper 
remedy.  His  immediate  object 
should  be  to  instruct  govern- 
ments how  to  legislate,  and  not 
individuals  how  to  get  rich.” 

P.  150. 


The  system  of  Adam  Smith  and  his  school  is  a theory 
of  exchange  values , and  these  are  the  proper  subject  matter 
of  individual  economy . 

National  wealth  consists , not  in  exchangeable  commod- 
ities, but  in  productive  powers ; and  therefore  a national 
economy  has  little  concern  with  values;  it  is  concerned  with 
the  study  of  the  development  of  productive  power . 


List. 

“That  Smith’s  school  teaches 
nothing  else  than  the  theory  of 
values,  is  seen  not  only  from 


Raymond. 

“Another  of  the  evil  conse- 
quences of  not  distinguishing 
between  public  and  private 


265]  Daniel  Raymond  and  Friederich  List . 


55 


the  fact  that  it  bases  its  doctrine 
everywhere  on  the  conception 
of  ‘value  in  exchange,’  but  also.,, 
from  the  definition  it  gives  of 
its  doctrine.  It  is  (says  J.  B. 
Say)  that  science  which  teaches 
how  riches,  or  exchangeable 
values,  are  produced,  distributed 
and  consumed.  This  is  un- 
doubtedly not  the  science  which 
teaches  how  the  productive  pow- 
ers are  awakened  and  developed, 
and  how  they  become  depressed 
and  destroyed.”  P.  138. 

“Adam  Smith’s  system  is 
nothing  more  than  a theory  of 
values;  a mere  shopkeeper’s  or 
individual  merchant’s  theory — 
not  a scientific  doctrine  showing 
how  the  productive  powers  of 
an  entire  nation  can  be  called  in- 
to existence,  increased,  main- 
tained and  preserved, — for  the 
special  benefit  of  its  civilization, 
welfare,  might,  continuance  and 
independence. 

“This  system  regards  every- 
thing from  the  shopkeepers’ 
point  of  view.  The  value  of 
anything  is  wealth,  according  to 
it,  so  its  sole  object  is  to  gain 
values.”  P.  350. 

“In  individual  and  cosmopol- 
itical  economy  the  object  is  to 
gain  matter  in  exchanging  mat- 
ter for  matter,  as  in  the  trade 
of  a merchant.”  Let.  II. 

“We  must  say  to  M.  Jean  Bap- 
tiste Say  at  the  outset  that  po- 
litical economy  is  not,  in  our 
opinion,  that  science  which 
teaches  only  how  values  in  ex- 
change are  produced  by  indi- 
viduals, distributed  among  them 
and  consumed  by  them;  we  say 


wealth,  is  a constant  liability  to 
mistake  the  proper  subjects 
which  belong  to  the  science. 
Hence  the  tedious  length  to 
which  most  writers  have  inves- 
tigated the  subject  of  value,  and 
the  causes  of  its  fluctuations, 
supposing  it  to  be  the  measure 
of  public  as  well  as  of  private 
wealth.”  P.  181. 

“It  is  very  natural  for  mer- 
chants, when  they  turn  politi- 
cians, to  use  their  own  terms 
and  tools  of  art,  . . . , but  it 

is  the  business  of  a political  phi- 
losopher not  to  be  misled  by 
these  misapplications  of  terms, 
nor  to  misapply  them  himself, 

. . . and  when  treating  of  na- 

tional wealth  in  gross,  let  him 
not  use  terms  applicable  to  only 
a part  of  the  nation,  and  wholly 
irrelevant  and  unmeaning  when 
applied  to  the  whole  nation.”  P. 
296. 

“ value  has  very  little  applica- 
tion to  public  wealjth,  . . . 

Property  is  the  only  subject  of 
value,  and  as  property  alone, 
constitutes  individual  wealth, 
those  writers  who  confound  na- 
tional and  individual  wealth  have 
attached  very  great  importance 
to  the  word  value,  and  have  dis- 
played a great  deal  of  ingenuity 
and  talents  in  investigating  its 
nature  and  cause,  and  in  endeav- 
oring to  fix  upon  its  true  stand- 
ard.” P.  56. 

“If  there  be  no  distinction  be- 
tween national  and  individual 

wealth, a treatise 

on  national  wealth  will  be  a trea- 
tise on  individual  wealth,  et  e 
converso.  This  is  degrading  the 


56 


Daniel  Raymond  and  Friederich  List.  [266 


to  him  that  a statesman  will 
know  and  must  know,  over  and 
above  that,  how  the  productive 
power  of  a whole  nation  can  be 
awakened,  increased  and  pro- 
tected, and  how  on  the  other 
hand  they  are  weakened,  laid  to 
sleep,  or  utterly  destroyed; 
• • • •”  P.356. 

“The  prosperity  of  a nation  is 
not,  as  Say  believes,  greater  in 
the  proportion  in  which  it  has 
amassed  more  wealth  (i.  e.,  val- 
ues of  exchange),  but  in  the 
proportion  in  which  it  has  more 
developed  its  powers  of  produc- 
tion.” P.  144. 


dignity  of  the  science  of  polit- 
ical economy  into  a paltry  sci- 
ence of  dollars  and  cents!  Upon 
this  supposition,  it  becomes  the 
business  of  the  political  econo- 
mist to  teach  individuals  how  to 
get  rich,  instead  of  teaching  leg- 
islators how  to  legislate.”  P. 

156. 

“the  comparative  wealth  of 
difTerent  nations  will  always  de- 
pend upon  the  extent  of  this  ca- 
pacity. If  one  nation  in  pro- 
portion to  its  population,  pos- 
sesses a greater  capacity  for  ac- 
quiring the  necessaries  and 
comforts  of  life  than  another,  it 
possesses  a greater  share  of  na- 
tional wealth.”  P.  48. 

“So,  if  one  nation  has  made 
greater  improvements  in  the 
arts  of  sciences  and  in  agricul- 
ture; if  its  lands  are  in  a higher 
state  of  cultivation,  if  its  roads, 
bridges,  canals,  mills,  buildings 
and  improvements  are  in  a 
greater  state  of  perfection  than 
those  of  another  nation,  it  has 
for  all  these  reasons  a greater 
capacity  for  acquiring  the  neces- 
sities and  comforts  of  life,  and 
therefore  possesses  a greater 
stock  of  national  wealth.”  P. 
50. 


Raymond  and  List,  alike,  reject  the  economic  system  of 
the  school  of  Adam  Smith,  on  the  ground  that  it  is  individual 
economy,  not  public,  or  political,  economy;  they  both  spe- 
cifically deny  the  assumed  harmony  of  interests  between  the 
individual  and  society;  they  both  insist  on  the  recognition 
of  nations  as  organic  unities ; they  both  make  political  econ- 
omy the  science  which  regards  the  interest  of  the  nation,  as 
such,  rather  than  the  interest  of  the  individual  or  the  race; 


267]  Daniel  Raymond  and  Friederich  List.  57 

they  both  reject  value,  denying  it  any  place  in  a true  theory 
of  political  economy ; they  both  make  national  wealth  to  con- 
sist, not  in  commodities,  as  does  private  wealth,  but  in  “ca- 
pacity,” or  “productive  power;”  they  both  accordingly  re- 
ject Smith’s  classification  of  productive  and  unproductive 
labor;  they  both  reject  his  arguments  for  the  international 
division  of  labor  and  free  trade;  they  both  advocate,  in  op- 
position to  this,  the  harmonious  development  in  each  nation 
of  agricultural  and  manufacturing  interests;  and  they  both 
repudiate  laissez  faire,  and  look  to  the  government  to  con- 
serve and  develop  national  wealth. 

This  seems  a rather  unusual  number  of  coincidences  of 
thought,  yet  in  themselves  they  are  not  sufficient  to  war- 
rant the  conclusion  that  List  took  his  ideas  bodily  from  Ray- 
mond. List  himself  says  he  was  largely  influenced  in  his 
conclusions  by  his  study  of  American  conditions;1  and  it  is, 
of  course,  entirely  possible  that  from  a study  of  the  same 
phenomena  they  were  both  led  to  the  same  ideas.  The  coin- 
cidences here  noted  are,  however,  sufficient  to  sustain  the 
contention  that  Raymond  at  least  anticipated  List  in  the  es- 
sential features  of  his  system;  and  there  are  other  circum- 
stances which  so  strongly  suggest  the  possibility  that  List 
was  an  unacknowledged  debtor  to  Raymond,  that  to  harbor 
the  suspicion  hardly  exposes  one  to  the  charge  of  rash  judg- 
ment. 

In  his  American  letters  List  hints  at  the  genesis  of  his 
ideas,  and  in  the  preface  to  the  first  edition  of  his  “National 
System,”  he  goes  into  more  detail  of  the  history  of  his  mental 
development  in  the  matter  of  political  economy.  In  this 
preface  he  states  that  as  early  as  1818  he  “was  not  satisfied 
with  teaching  young  men  that  science  (political  economy)  in 
its  present  form;”2  he  had  begun  to  entertain  “doubts  as  to 
the  truths  of  the  prevailing  theory  of  political  economy.”3 
Though  at  that  time  free  trade  seemed  to  him  “accordant 


lUThe  National  System,”  p.  29. 

2 Ibid.,  p.  25. 

3 Ibid. 


58  Daniel  Raymond  and  Friederich  List.  [268 

with  common  sense,  and  also  to  be  proved  by  experience,” 
as  seen  in  France  and  Great  Britain,  yet  he  saw  in  “the  won- 
derfully favorable  effects  of  Napoleon’s  continental  system, 
and  the  destructive  results  of  its  abolition,”  things  that 
seemed  to  him  to  be  directly  contrary  to  what  he  had  pre- 
viously observed.  Then  it  was  that  the  idea  of  “the  nature 
of  nationality ” came  to  him  and  “he  perceived  the  distinc- 
tion between  cosmopolitical  and  political  economy.”  In  1819 
he  was  adviser  of  the  German  commercial  league,  and  was 
waging  a newspaper  war  with  “an  innumerable  army  of 
correspondents  and  leader  writers,  from  Hamburg  and  Bre- 
men, from  Leipzig  and  Frankfort,  and  of  this  experience  he 
writes:  “In  the  course  of  the  daily  controversy  which  I had 
to  conduct,  I was  led  to  perceive  the  distinction  between  the 
theory  of  values  and  the  theory  of  the  powers  of  production” 
Such  is  the  genesis  of  List’s  system,  according  to  his  own 
testimony. 

In  List’s  collected  works,  edited  by  Professor  Hausser,1 
there  are  only  five  articles  from  his  pen  dated  prior  to  his  de- 
parture for  America,  and  these  all  belong  to  the  years  1819- 
20.  In  these  there  are  no  symptoms  of  that  loss  of  faith  in 
the  doctrines  of  Adam  Smith,  which  List  avers  had  taken 
place  as  early  as  this  date;  much  less  is  there  any  shadowing 
forth  of  the  principles  and  the  system  he  so  distinctly  enun- 
ciated soon  after  his  arrival  in  the  United  States.  Even  his 
“Outlines,”  published  in  this  country  in  1827,  hardly  show 
such  an  advanced  stage  of  development  as  he  claims  to  have 
reached  before  he  had  left  Germany;  and  so  far  as  appears 
from  Professor  Hausser’s  collection,  the  “Outlines”  are  less 
a development  than  a complete  contradiction  of  all  that  List 
had  held  and  taught  before.  In  view  of  this,  one  would 
hardly  expect  to  find  in  the  articles  List  wrote  for  the  press 
during  his  newspaper  controversy  with  the  “innumerable 
army  of  correspondents  and  leader  writers”  much  trace  of 


^‘Friederich  List’s  gesammelte  Schriften,  herausgegeben  von 
Ludwig  Hausser.”  Stuttgart  and  Tiibungen,  1850. 


269]  Daniel  Raymond  and  Friederich  List.  59 

what  is  so  conspicuously  absent  in  his  more  carefully  pre- 
pared writings  of  that  time.  But  without  consulting  these 
one  would  perhaps  not  be  warranted  in  stating  authorita- 
tively that  no  trace  of  List’s  new  system  can  be  found  in  his 
writings  before  his  arrival  in  the  United  States.  These 
writings  are  not  available  to  me,  and  in  the  absence  of  them 
I have  to  rest  my  conclusion  on  the  authority  of  those  who 
have  made  a study  of  the  development  of  List’s  system,  and 
who  have  been  in  a position  to  consult  all  of  his  writings. 

Their  testimony  does  not  bear  out  List’s  statements  as  to 
when  he  first  separated  from  the  school  of  Adam  Smith.  His 
recollection  in  1841  of  his  mental  development  of  twenty 
years  earlier  does  not  harmonize  with  Professor  Leser’s  no- 
tion of  that  development  as  evidenced  in  List’s  writings.  In 
1819  he  was,  according  to  Leser,1  still  dominated  by  the  free 
trade  principle  of  Adam  Smith,  and  the  only  exception  to  it 
which  he  justified  was  by  way  of  retaliation;  and  he  regarded 
i it  as  heresy  to  believe  that  internal  industry  could  be  awak- 
ened by  customs  duties.  In  1820  he  is  still  insisting  on  the 
stock  argument  that  a protective  tariff  only  operates  to  di- 
vert industrial  energy  into  lines  for  which  a country  was  not 
fitted  by  nature,  and  thus  to  retard  the  development  of  the 
industries  for  which  nature  had  particularly  adapted  the 
country;  free  trade  was  still  the  true  system  through  which 
alone  the  highest  degree  of  welfare  was  to  be  attained.  He 
showed  himself  still  a true  disciple  of  Adam  Smith,  and  urged 


1<(Die  Aufgabe,  die  ihm  gestellt  war,  erfiillte  er  in  einem  Geiste 
der  sich  vollstandig  von  der  freihandelerischen  Theorie  der  Eng- 
lander beherrscht  zeigte.  Nic'ht  auf  die  Begriindung  eines 
Deutschen  Grenzzollsystems,  sondern  auf  die  Beseitigung  der  be- 
stehenden  Binnenzolle  ist  der  Nachdruck  gelegt;  ja,  nur  von  dem 
auch  durch  Adam  Smith  fiir  berechtigt  erklarten  standpunkt  der 
Retorsion  wird  iiberhaupt  ein  Zollsystem  vertheidigt.  Dagegen 
bezeichnet  es  L.  als  eine  notorische  Irrlehre,  dass  die  inlandische 
Industrie  durch  Zolle  geweckt  werden  konne.”  Allgemeine 
Deutsche  Biographie,  p.  762. 


60  Daniel  Raymond  and  Friederich  List.  [270 

that  the  welfare  of  the  nation  was  impeded  and  destroyed  in 
the  same  way  as  was  that  of  individuals.1 

At  the  very  time  when  List  claims  already  to  have  “per- 
ceived the  distinction  between  cosmopolitical  and  political 
economy,”  and  to  have  conceived  his  “theory  of  the  pro- 
ductive powers,”  as  opposed  to  the  “theory  of  values,”  Prof. 
Leser  stoutly  maintains  that  he  was  still  a loyal  disciple  of 
the  school  of  Adam  Smith,  and  engaged  in  defending  its 
cosmopolitical  principle  of  free  trade. 

Not  only  do  List’s  “collected  writings”  bear  out  Leser  in 
the  contention  that  in  1820  List  was  still  of  the  school  of 
Smith,  but  this  claim  is  further  sustained  by  the  fact  that 
as  late  as  1822,  when  in  exile  in  Strasburg,  List  proposed 
translating  J.  B.  Say  into  German,2 — a piece  of  work  we 
should  hardly  look  for  in  one  so  thoroughly  out  of  sympathy 
with  that  author  as  List  represents  himself  to  have  been. 

Leser  first  finds  List  in  opposition  to  the  school  of  Smith 
in  his  “Outlines,”  published  two  years  after  his  arrival  in 
America;  and  he  attributes  this  change  of  heart  to  the  exi- 
gencies of  List’s  new  surroundings,  and  suggests  that  he 
found  the  materials  for  his  new  system  ready  to  hand  in  the 


1Von  den  Schutzzollen  wird  geurtheilt,  dass  sie  zu  ‘Productionen 
zwingen,  welche  der  Natur  des  Landes,  zu  dessen  Vortheil  der 
Zwang  Statt  findet,  nicht  angemessen  sind,  und  diejenigen  be- 
schranken,  welche  seine  Natur  entsprechen.’  Die  Wirkungen  des 
Mercantilsystems  werden  als  traurige  bezeichnet;  dagegen  heisst 
die  Welthandelsfreiheit  ein  Ideal,  “wodurch  einzig  nur  die  hochste 
Stufe  menschlichen  Wohlstandes  erreichbar  scheint.’  Auch  in  an- 
dern  Punkten  zeigt  sich  der  Verfasser  der  Denkschrift  als  treuer 
Schuler  des  Smith’schen  Systems.  Er  legt  auf  die  Bilanz  zwischen 
Production  und  Konsum  grosses  Gewicht;  es  legt  die  Vermehrung 
der  Ausfuhr  mehr  Bedeutung  bei  als  der  Verhinderung  der  Einfuhr 
und  erklart,  dass  der  Wohlstand  der  Nationen  auf  demselben  Wege 
behindert  und  geschadigt  werde  wie  derjenige  der  Einzelnen.” 
Ibid.,  p.  763. 

2“Da  wurden  Plane  gemacht  zu  grosseren  literarischen  Arbeiten; 
Say’s  Nationalokonomie  sollte  iibersetzt  und  erlautert  herausge- 
geben  werden.”  Hausser,  gesammelte  Schriften,  p.  178. 


271]  Daniel  Raymond  and  Friederich  List.  61 

arguments  then  common  in  the  United  States.1  It  was  in 
the  air,  so  to  say,  and  List  only  caught  and  gave  a local  hab- 
itation and  a scientific  name  to  what  up  to  that  time  had 
been  floating  about  in  a vague  way  in  popular  discussion. 

The  testimony  of  Eheberg — whose  acquaintance  with  the 
writings  of  List  is  thorough — is  also  to  the  effect  that  List  is 
found  in  opposition  to  the  school  of  Adam  Smith  for  the 
first  time  after  his  arrival  in  America;2  and  that  he  found  his 


1“L.  blieb  seiner  Vergangenheit  darin  treu,  dass  er  sich  wieder- 
um  auf  die  Seite  der  strembsamsten  und  erwerbthatigsten  Klassen 
stellte.  Freilich  handelte  es  sich  nun  nicht  darum,  wie  in  Deutsch- 
land Beschrankungen  des  inneren  Verkehrs  entgegenzutreten,  son- 
dern  die  industrielle  Bevolkerung  verlangte  im  Gegentheil  Ab- 
schliessung  vom  Ausland  durch  hohe  Satze  des  Zolltarifs.  Diese 
Bestrebungen  waren  naturlich  mit  der  Smith’schen  Theorie,  in 
deren  Geist  seine  friiheren  Argumentationen  im  Wesentlichen  ge- 
halten  waren,  nicht  zu  vertheidigen.  Allein  ihm  blieb  stets  die  Wis- 
senschaft  den  Practischen  Interessen  untergeordnet,  und  er  besass 
Belesenheit  genug  in  neuern  Staatswissenschaftlichen  Schriften,  um 
auch  mit  dem  Gedankenreis  der  Schutzzollner,  wie  sie  namentlich 
in  Frankreich  und  in  Amerika  selbst  aufgetreten  waren,  bekannt  zu 
sein.  So  vermochte  er  zur  Unterstiitzung  der  Pennsylvanischen 
Industriellen  theoretische  Erorterungen  zu  veroffentlichen,  deren 
hauptgegenstand  die  Bekampfung  der  beriihmtesten  volkswirth- 
schaftlichen  Schriftstellers  bildete.”  Allg.  Deut.  Biog.,  p.  765. 

“Aber  auch  diese  Ausfiihrungen,  die  der  nur  mit  Englischen  Lit- 
teratur  Bekannte  fur  ganz  originell  halten  mag,  mochten  den 
Amerikanern  nur  als  eine  blosse  systematische  Formulirung  von 
Satzen  und  Anschauungen  erschienen  denen  sie  in  den  Verhand- 
lungen  ihrer  politischen  Korpersehaften  und  in  den  Ausspriichen 
hervorragender  Staatsmanner  schon  begegnet  waren.”  Ibid.,  p. 
766. 

2Wahrend  List  vor  seiner  Reise  nach  America  sich  im  allgemei- 
nen  als  Anhanger  der  Englischen  Nationalokonomie  giebt,  stellt 
er  sich  in  Amerika,  ankniipfend  an  thatsachliche  Verhaltnisse, 
zum  erstenmal  der  Adam  Smith’schen  Richtung  entgegen,  indem 
er  der  Freihandelstheorie  die  berechtigung  des  Schutzzollers  entge- 
genhallt.  Schon  in  den  Amerikanischen  Broschiiren  finden  sich 
einige  der  seitdem  oft  gebrauchten  Argumente  zu  gunsten  der 
Schutzzolle,  findet  sich  ferner  die  Betoning  der  wirthschaftlichen 
Bedeutung  der  nationen  gegeniiber  dem  Individualismus  und  Kos- 
mopolitismus  von  Adam  Smith,  finden  sich  die  ersten  Anfange  sei- 


62  Daniel  Raymond  and  Friederich  List.  [272 

theory  ready  to  hand  in  the  current  arguments  of  the  Amer- 
ican protectionists. 

It  would  seem  then  that  List’s  system  and  Raymond’s  are, 
at  bottom,  practically  identical;  and  that  List  conceived  the 
idea  of  his  system  while  a resident  of  the  United  States,  and 
some  years  after  Raymond’s  work  had  been  given  to  the 
public. 

Is  there  any  reason  to  believe  that  List  was  acquainted 
with  Raymond’s  work?  This  is  at  least  possible, — if  not 
highly  probable.  In  the  absence  of  direct  evidence  on  this 
point,  we  are  left  to  conjecture  from  circumstances;  and  it 

is,  in  truth,  harder  to  believe  that  List  had  no  knowledge  of 
Raymond’s  work  than  to  believe  that  he  was  acquainted  with 

it.  Raymond’s  second  edition  had  been  given  to  the  public 
less  than  two  years  before  List’s  arrival  in  this  country.  It 
had  not,  it  is  true,  had  a wide  circulation,  nor  commended 
itself  to  the  popular  reader;  but  it  had  received  high  praise, — 
even  extravagant  praise, — in  many  quarters,  and  had  very 
much  impressed  some  of  the  writers  and  thinkers  of  the  day. 
It  was  highly  thought  of  by  men  in  Philadelphia,  and  was 
known  to  the  press  there.  It  had  especially  impressed  Mat- 
thew Carey,  who  was  prominent  in  the  very  organization  for 
which  List  had  prepared  his  “Outlines  of  American  Political 
Economy,”  and  who  likely  knew  List.  In  his  first  letter  in 
his  “Outlines,”  List  speaks  as  one  who  had  been  industriously 
delving  into  the  literature  of  protection,1  and  mentions 
Niles’  Register  as  one  of  the  sources  from  which  he  had  been 


ner  Lehre  von  den  Productivkraften.  Auch  die  Beniitzung  ge- 
schichlicher  Thatsachen  als  Beweismittel  zeigt  sich  schon  hier. 
Die  Besonderheit  seiner  Nationalokonomischen  Auffassung  er- 
schient  noch  deutlicher  in  den  in  dem  Jahren  1838  und  1840  ver- 
offentlichen  Artikeln;  sie  findet  ihren  beredlesten  Ausdruk  in  dem 
Nationalen  System  der  politischem  Okonomie.  Eheberg.  Hand- 
worterbuch  der  Staatswissenschaften.  (1892).  P.  1056. 

iaAfter  having  perused  the  different  addresses  of  the  Philadelphia 
Society  for  the  Promotion  of  National  Industry  the  different 
speeches  delivered  in  Congress  on  that  subject,  Niles’  Register,  &c., 
&c.,  it  would  be  but  arrogance  for  me,  &c.”  Letter,  July  10,  1827. 


273]  Daniel  Raymond  and  Friederich  List.  63 

seeking  to  acquaint  himself  with  protectionist  doctrines. 
Had  he  gone  back  over  a few  numbers  of  the  Register  he 
would  have  found  the  announcement  of  the  adoption  of  Ray- 
mond’s work  as  the  standard  text  book  in  the  University  of 
Virginia,  for  this  item  had  appeared  there  just  subsequent  to 
the  arrival  of  List  in  this  country.  List  knew  of  Cooper’s 
work,  published  in  South  Carolina,  in  1826;  and  it  seems,  to 
say  the  least,  “passing  strange”  that  Raymond’s  work 
should  so  completely  have  escaped  one  who  was  attempt- 
ing to  acquaint  himself  with  the  literature  of  economics  in 
America,  who  was  doing  this  at  the  very  time  of  the  circula- 
tion of  Raymond’s  book,  and  that  too  in  the  midst  of  men 
who  not  only  knew,  but  admired  the  system  enunciated  in 
that  book. 

The  sum  of  the  whole  matter,  then,  is  this : that  Raymond 
and  List  hit  upon  the  same  principles  as  the  basis  of  their 
system  of  political  economy;  that  Raymond  had  given  his 
principles  to  the  public  some  years  before  List  had  shown 
evidence  of  his  having  conceived  similar  ideas ; and  that  List 
only  gave  his  system  to  the  world  after  he  had  had  such  op- 
portunities for  becoming  acquainted  with  Raymond’s  work, 
that  it  is  difficult  to  believe  that  he  did  not  actually  have  a 
knowledge  of  it. 


THE  JOHNS  HOPKINS  PRESS 

OF  BALTIMORE. 


I.  American  Journal  of  Mathematics.  T.  Craig,  Editor,  with  the  co- 

operation of  S.  Newcomb.  Quarterly.  4to.  Volume  XIX  in 
progress.  $5  per  volume. 

II.  American  Chemical  Journal.  I.  Remsen,  Editor.  Ten  nos.  yearly. 

8vo.  Volume  XIX  in  progress,  $4  per  volume. 

III.  American  Journal  of  Philology.  B.  L.  Gildersleeve,  Editor. 
Quarterly.  8vo.  Volume  XVIII  in  progress.  $3  per  volume. 

IV.  Studies  from  the  Biological  Laboratory.  8vo.  Volume  V com- 
plete. 

V.  Studies  in  History  and  Politics.  H.  B.  Adams,  Editor.  Monthly. 

8vo.  Vol.  XV  in  progress;  $3  per  volume.  Fourteen  extra  vol- 
umes of  this  series  are  also  ready. 

VI.  Johns  Hopkins  University  Circulars.  4to.  Monthly.  Volume  XVI 

in  progress.  $1  per  year. 

VII.  Johns  Hopkins  Hospital  Bulletin.  4to.  Monthly.  Volume  VIII 
in  progress.  $1  per  year. 

VIII.  Johns  Hopkins  Hospital  Reports.  4to.  Volume  VI  in  progress. 
$5  per  volume. 

IX.  Contributions  to  Assyriology,  etc.  Volume  III  in  progress. 

X.  Selected  Morphological  Monographs.  W.  K.  Brooks,  Editor.  Vol- 

ume III  complete. 

XI.  Annual  Report  of  the  Johns  Hopkins  University.  Presented  by  the 
President  to  the  Board  of  Trustees. 

XII.  Annual  Register  of  the  Johns  Hopkins  University.  Giving  the 
list  of  officers  and  Students,  and  stating  the  regulations,  etc. 


A New  Critical  Edition  of  the  Hebrew  Text  of  the  Old  Tes- 
tament. Edited  by  Prof.  Paul  Haupt.  Prospectus  on  application. 

Rowland's  Photograph  of  the  Normal  Solar  Spectrum.  Ten 
plates.  $20. 

Description  of  the  Johns  Hopkins  Hospital.  J.  S.  Billings,  Edi- 
tor. 116  pp.,  56  plates.  4to.  Cloth,  $7.50. 

The  Teaching  of  the  Apostles  ( complete  facsimile  edition  ).  J. 
Rendel  Harris,  Editor.  no  pp.  and  10  plates.  4to.  Cloth,  $5.00. 

Reproduction  in  Phototype  of  a Syriac  MS.  with  the  Antile- 
gomena  Epistles.  I.  H.  Hall.  Editor.  Cloth,  $4.00. 

The  Constitution  of  Japan.  48  pp.  i6mo.  50  cts. 

The  Oyster.  By  Wm  K.  Brooks.  240  pp.,  12  plates.  i2mo.  Cloth,  $1. 

Essays  and  Studies.  By  B.  L.  Gildersleeve.  520  pp.,  4to.  Cloth,  $3.50. 

Studies  in  Logic.  By  members  of  the  Johns  Hopkins  University.  C. 
S.  Peirce,  Editor.  123  pp.,  i2mo.  Cloth,  $2.00. 

Geological  and  Topographical  Maps  of  Baltimore  and  Vicin- 
ity. $1.00  each. 

Essays  in  the  Constitutional  History  of  the  United  States. 
J.  Franklin  Jameson,  Editor.  Cloth,  $2.25. 

The  Genus  Salpa.  By  W.  K.  Brooks.  396  pp.,  4to.  57  plates.  $7.50. 

Geology  and  Physical  Features  of  Maryland.  By  G.  H.  Wil- 
liams and  W.  B.  Clark.  $1.00 

Selections  from  the  Early  Scottish  Poets.  By  Wm.  Hand 
Browne,  240  pp.  16  mo.  $1.25. 


A full  list  of  publications  will  be  sent  on  application. 

Business  communications  should  be  addressed  to  The  Johns  Hopkins  Press. 


Gugqenheimer, 

nwmmi  ■ ■■  ■ mm  ■ ■■  ■ i 

Weil  & Co.^ 

KftDWMMOBBKMaUftMMBIRIBiaMnniifliiiiii 


Arc  pleased  to  announce  to  the  readers  of  this 
volume  their  readiness  to  serve  them  in  any 
way,  from  the  production  of  a visiting  card  to 
a printed  volume,  of  which  this  is  a specimen. 


Printing,  Otbograpbic  and  Stationery 
...  Supplies  ... 

FOR  THE  LIBRARY  AND  BUSINESS  OFFICE. 


BOOK  PRINTING, 
BOOK  BINDING, 
BLANK  BOOKS, 

Miscellaneous  Binding. 

CARD  ENGRAVING:  _ 

Wedding,  Reception,  * 

Visiting. 


Retail  Department, 

109  E.  Baltimore  St. 


Mechanical  Department, 

Liberty  and  Lombard  Sts, 


Modern  Language  Notes 


A MONTHLY  PUBLICATION. 


With  intermission  from  July  to  October , inclusive, 

DEVOTED  TO  THE  INTERESTS 

OF  THE 

ACADEMIC  STUDY  OF  E N.G  LIS  H,  GERMAN 

AND  THE 


ROMANCE  LANGUAGES. 


A.  Marshall  Elliott,  Managing  Editor. 

James  W.  Bright,  H.  C.  G.  von  Jagemann,  Henry  Alfred  Todd, 
Associate  Editors. 


This  is  a successful  and  widely-known  periodical,  managed  by  a corps  of  professors  and  in- 
structors in  the  Johns  Hopkins  University,  with  the  co-operation  of  many  of  the  leading  college 
professors,  in  the  department  of  modern  languages,  throughout  the  country.  While  undertak- 
ing to  maintain  a high  critical  and  scientific  standard,  the  new  journal  will  endeavor  to  engage 
the  interest  and  meet  the  wants  of  the  entire  class  of  serious  and  progressive  modern-lan- 
guage teachers,  of  whatever  grade.  Since  its  establishment  in  January,  1886,  the  journal  has 
been  repeatedly  enlarged,  and  has  met  with  constantly  increasing  encouragement  and  success. 
The  wide  range  of  its  articles,  original,  critical,  literary  and  pedagogical,  by  a number  of  the 
foremost  American  (and  European)  scholars,  has  well  represented  and  recorded  the  recent  pro- 
gress of  modern  language  studies,  both  at  home  and  abroad. 

The  list  of  contributors  to  Modern  Language  Notes,  in  addition  to  the  Editors,  includes 
the  following  names: 

Anderson,  Melville  B.,  State  University  of  Iowa;  Bancroft,  T.  Whitinq,  Brown  Univer- 
sity, R.  I.;  Baskerviele,  W.  M.,  Vanderbilt  University,  Tenn.;  Bocher,  Ferdinand,  Harvard 
University,  Mass.;  Bradley,  C.  B.,  University  of  California,  Cal.;  Brandt,  H.  C.  G.,  Hamilton 
College,  N.  Y.;  Browne,  Wm.  Hand,  Johns  Hopkins  University,  Md.;  Burnham,  Wm.  H.,  Johns 
Hopkins  University,  Md.;  Carpenter,  Wm.  H.,  Columbia  College,  N.  Y.;  Cledat,  L.,  Faculty 
des  Lettres,  Lyons,  France;  Cohn,  Adolphe,  Harvard  University,  Mass.;  Cook,  A.  S.,  Yale  Uni- 
versity; Cosijn,  P.  J.,  University  of  Leyden,  Holland;  Crane,  T.  F.,  Cornell  University,  N.  Y.; 
Davidson,  Thomas,  Orange,  N.  J.;  Egge,  Albert  E.;  St.  Olaf’s  College,  Minn.;  Fay,  E.  A.,  Na- 
tional Deaf-Mute  College,  Washington,  D.  C.;  Fortier,  Alcee,  Tulane  University,  La.;  Garner, 
Samuel,  U.  S.  Naval  Academy;  Gerber,  A.,  Earlham  College,  Ind.;  Grandgent,  Charles, 
Harvard  University,  Mass.;  Gummere,  F.  B.,  The  Swain  Free  School,  Mass.;  Hart,  J.  M.,  Uni- 
versity of  Cincinnati,  Ohio;  Hempl,  Geo.,  University  of  Michigan;  Huss,  H.  C.  O.,  Princeton 
College,  N.  J.;  von  Jagemann,  H.  C.  G.,  Harvard  University;  Karsten,  Gustaf,  University  of 
Indiana,  Ind.;  Lang,  Henry  R.,  The  Swain  Free  School,  Mass.;  Learned,  M.  D.,  Johns  Hop- 
kins University,  Md.;  Leyh,  Edw.  F.,  Baltimore,  Md.;  Lodeman,  A.,  Kate  Normal  School, 
Mich.;  Morfill,W.  R.,  Oxford,  England;  McCabe, T.,  Johns  Hopkins  University,  Md.;  McElroy, 
John  G.  R.,  University  of  Pennsylvania,  Pa.;  O’Connor,  B.  F.,  Columbia  College,  N.Y.;  Primer, 
Sylvester,  Providence,  R.  I.;  Schele  De  Yere,  M.,  University  of  Virginia,  Va.;  Schilling, 
Hugo,  Wittenberg  College,  Ohio;  Sheldon,  Edw.  S..  Harvard  University.  Mass.;  Shepherd,  H. 
E.,  College  of  Charleston,  S.  C.;  Schmidt,  H.,  University  of  Deseret,  Salt  Lake  City.  Utah; 
Sievers.  Eduard,  University  of  Tubingen,  Germany;  smythe,  A.  H.,  High  School  of  Phila- 
delphia. Pa.;  Stoddard,  Francis  H.,  University  of  City  of  New  York;  Sturzingeb,  J.  J.,  Bryn 
Mawr  College,  Pa.;  Thomas,  Calvin,  University  of  Michigan,  Mich.;  Walter,  E.  L.,  University 
of  Michigan.  Mich,;  Warren,  F.  M.,  Johns  Hopkins  University,  Md.;  White,  H.  S.,  Cornell 
University,  N.  Y. 


Subscription  Price  $1.50  per  Annum,  Payable  in  Advance. 
Foreign  Countries  $1.75  per  Annum. 

Single  Copies  Twenty  Cents.  Specimen  Pages  sent  on  Application. 

Subscriptions,  advertisements  and  all  business  communications  should  be  addressed  to  the 
MANAGING  EDITOR  OF  MODERN  LANGUAGE  NOTES, 

Johns  Hopkins  University,  Baltimore,  Md. 


The  American  Journal  of  Archeology 

AND  OF  THE 

HISTORY  OF  THE  FINE  ARTS. 


The  American  Journal  of  Archaeology  is  the  organ  of  the  Archaeological  Insti- 
tute of  America.  It  contains  original  articles  by  archaeologists  of  established  reputa- 
tion both  in  Europe  and  in  America,  also  the  Papers  of  the  American  School  of  Classical 
Studies  at  Athens,  Correspondence,  Book  Reviews,  and  News  of  excavations  and  dis- 
coveries in  all  countries. 

CONTENTS  OF  VOL.  XI.,  No.  i,  JAN.-MARCH,  1896. 

R.  Norton. — Andokides,  the  Greek  Vase-painter. 

R.  B.  Richardson. — Inscriptions  from  the  Argive  Heraeum. 
Archaeological  News  from  Africa  and  Asia. 

CONTENTS  OF  VOL.  XI.',  No.  2,  APRIL-JUNE,  1896. 

Paul  Wolters. — Pinax  aus  Athen. 

Paul  Wolters.—  HATII0TI2. 

Henry  W.  Haynes. — Grotesque  Figurine. 

Papers  of  the  American  School  of  Classical  Studies  at 

Athens. 

I.  The  Gymnasium  at  Eretria,  by  R.  B.  Richardson. 

II.  Sculptures  from  the  Gymnasium  at  Eretria,  by  R.  B.  Richardson. 

III.  Inscriptions  from  the  Gymnasium  at  Eretria,  by  R.  B.  Richard- 
son and  T.  W.  Heermance. 

Notes  from  Corinth  and  Italy. 

Archaeological  News  from  Greece  and  Italy. 

CONTENTS  OF  VOL.  XI.,  No.  3,  JULY-SEPT.,  1896. 

Papers  of  the  American  School  of  Classical  Studies  at 

Athens. 

I.  Excavation  of  the  Theatre  at  Eretria,  by  T.  W.  Heermance. 

II.  Fragment  of  a dated  Panathenaic  Amphora,  by  T.  W.  Heer- 
mance. 

Dimensions  of  the  Athena  Parthenos,  by  A.  L.  Perry  and  Alfred 
Emerson. 

Bronze-Reliefs  from  the  Acropolis  of  Athens,  by  Paul  Wolters. 
Necrology.  Johannes  Overbeck,  by  Walter  Miller. 

Notes  from  Corinth. 

Archaeological  News  from  Africa,  Asia,  Europe. 


Published  Quarterly.  Annual  Subscription,  $5.00. 


Address, 

A.  Lv.  FROTHINGHAMJr. 

PRINCETON,  NEW  JERSEY. 


RECENT  PUBLICATIONS  OF  THE 

American  Economic  Association. 


Race  Traits  and  Tendencies  of  the  American  Negro. 

By  Frederick  L.  Hoffman,  F.  S.  S. 

Statistician  to  the  Prudential  Insurance  Company  of  America. 

329  pages.  Price,  paper,  $1.25;  cloth,  $2.00. 


“The  eleventh  volume  of  the  publications  of  the  American  Economic 
Association  begins  with  the  admirable  study  of  the  course  of  develop- 
ment of  the  negro  race  in  the  United  States  of  America.  It  is  the  out- 
come of  ten  years  of  patient  collection  of  facts,  and  the  facts  are  allowed 
to  speak  for  themselves,  though  the  writer  comments  freely  upon  them 
as  the  record  proceeds.  * * * The  volume  should  prove  a mine  of 
useful  information  to  students  having  other  interests  than  the  progress  of 
the  negro  race,  though  it  is  to  this  race  that  it  is  particularly  devoted. 
* * * The  problems  discussed  in  this  volume  and  the  material 
gathered  to  aid  in  their  discussion  are  of  intense  interest  and  of  undoubted 
value  to  the  student  of  social  life  in  its  various  modern  manifestations.” 
— Journal  of  the  Royal  Statistical  Society. 


ECONOMIC  STUDIES. 

VOLUME  I. 

No.  3.  THE  POPULIST  MOVEMENT.  By  F.  L.  McVey,  Ph.  D. 
Price  50  cents. 

No.  4.  THE  PRESENT  MONETARY  SITUATION:  an  address  by 
Professor  W.  Lexis,  University  of  Gottingen;  translated  by  John 
Cummings,  Ph.D.  Price  50  cents. 

Nos.  5-6.  THE  STREET  RAILWAY  PROBLEM  IN  CLEVELAND. 

By  William  Rowland  Hopkins.  Price  50  cents. 

VOLUME  II. 

No.  1.  ECONOMICS  AND  JURISPRUDENCE.  Address  of  Henry 
C.  Adams,  Ph.D.,  President,  before  the  Ninth  Annual  Meeting  of 
the  American  Economic  Association.  Price  50  cents. 

HAND-BOOK  AND  REPORT  OF  THE  NINTH  ANNUAL  MEET- 
ING. Price  50  cents. 


Price  of  the  several  volumes  of  monographs,  unbound,  $4.00  each. 
Bound  in  cloth,  $5.00  each  for  single  volumes,  $4.00  for  each  additional 
volume.  The  set  of  ten  volumes,  $41.00,  sent  prepaid.  Any  bound  volume 
will  be  sent  post-paid  to  members  for  75  cents  in  exchange  for  the  un- 
bound numbers,  if  returned  prepaid  in  good  condition.  Copies  can  also 
be  furnished  in  half  morocco,  at  50  cents  per  volume  additional  to  the 
price  in  cloth. 

Separate  subscriptions  by  non-members,  libraries,  etc.,  for  the  Studies, 
$2.50  per  year;  or  $4.00  for  all  the  publications.  Any  single  monograph 
may  be  obtained  at  the  price  given  in  the  list. 

One-sixth  Discount  to  members  on  all  Orders. 


Address  applications  for  mem- 
bership and  inquiries  to 

The  Secretary  of  the  Ameri- 
can Economic  Association. 

Cornell  University, 

Ithaca,  N.  Y. 


Address  Subscriptions  and  or- 
ders for  Studies  and  Mono- 
graphs, to  the  publishers, 

THE  MACMILLAN  CO., 

66  Fifth  Avenue. 

New  York. 


STUDIES  ID  HISTORY,  ECONOMICS  UNO  PUBLIC  LAW, 

EDITED  BY 

THE  FACULTY  OF  POLITICAL  SCIENCE  OF 
COLUMBIA  UNIVERSITY. 


VOLUME  I.  396  pp. 

1.  The  Divorce  Problem:  a Study  in  Statistics. 

By  Walter  F.  Willcox,  Ph.  D.  Price,  50c. 

2.  The  History  of  Tariff  Administration  in  the  United  States,  from 

Colonial  Times  to  the  McKinley  Administrative  Bill. 

By  John  Dean  Goss,  Ph.  D.  Price,  50c. 

3.  History  of  Municipal  Land  Ownership  on  Manhattan  Island. 

By  George  Ashton  Black,  Ph.  D.  Price,  50c. 

4.  Financial  History  of  Massachusetts. 

By  Charles  H.  J.  Douglas,  Ph.  D.  Price,  $1.00. 

VOLUME  II.  503  pp. 

1.  The  Economics  of  the  Russian  Village. 

By  Isaac  A.  Hourwich,  Ph.  D.  Price,  $1.00. 

2.  Bankruptcy  : A Study  in  Comparative  Legislation. 

By  Samuel  W.  Dunscomb,  Jr.,  Ph.  D.  Price,  75c. 

3.  Special  Assessments  : A Study  in  Municipal  Finance. 

By  Victor  Rosewater,  Ph.  D.  Price,  75c. 

VOLUME  III.  465  pp. 

1.  History  of  Elections  in  the  American  Colonies. 

By  Cortlandt  F.  Bishop,  Ph.  D.  Price,  $1.50. 
Yol.  III.  No.  1,  may  also  be  obtained  bound.  Price,  $2.00. 

2.  The  Commercial  Policy  of  England  toward  the  American  Colonies. 

By  George  L.  Beer,  A.  M.  Price,  $1.00. 

VOLUME  IV.  438  pp. 

1.  Financial  History  of  Virginia.  By  W.  Z.  Ripley,  Ph.  D. 

2.  The  Inheritance  Tax.  By  Max  West,  Ph.  D. 

3.  History  of  Taxation  in  Vermont. 

By  Frederick  A.  Wood,  Ph.  D. 

VOLUME  V.  498  pp. 

1.  Double  Taxation  in  the  United  States. 

By  Francis  Walker,  Ph.  D.  Price,  75c. 

2.  The  Separation  of  Governmental  Powers. 

By  William  Bondy,  LL.  B.,  Ph.  D.  Price,  $1.00. 

3.  Municipal  Government  in  Michigan  and  Ohio. 

By  Delos  F.  Wilcox,  Ph.  D.  Price,  $1.00. 

VOLUME  VI.  601  pp. 

History  of  Proprietary  Government  in  Pennsylvania. 

By  William  Robert  Shepherd,  Ph.  D.  Price,  $4.00;  bound,  $4.50. 

VOLUME  VII.  512  pp. 

1.  History  of  the  Transition  from  Provincial  Government  in  Massachu- 

setts. By  Harry  A.  Cushing,  Ph.  D.  Price,  $2.00;  bound,  $2.50. 

2.  Speculation  on  the  Stock  and  Produce  Exchanges  of  the  United 

States.  By  Henry  Crosby  Emery,  Ph.  D.  Price,  $1.50  ; bound,  $2. 

Price  of  each  volume  (except  Volume  VI.),  $3.00;  bound,  $3.50. 

For  further  information,  apply  to 

Prof.  EDWIN  R A.  SELICMAN,  Columbia  College, 

orto  THE  MACMILLAN  COMPANY,  New  York. 


Price,  75c. 
Price,  75c. 

Price,  75c. 


NOTES  SUPPLEMENTARY  TO  THE  STUDIES 


MUNICIPAL  GOVERNMENT  IN  ENGLAND.  By  Dr.  Albert  Shaw. 

SOCIAL  WORK  IN  AUSTRALIA  AND  LONDON.  By  WILLIAM  GREY. 
ENCOURAGEMENT  OF  HIGHER  EDUCATION.  By  Professor  HERBERT  B.  Adams. 
THE  PROBLEM  OF  CITY  GOVERNMENT.  By  Hon.  SETH  LOW. 

THE  LIBRARIES  OF  BALTIMORE.  By  Dr.  P.  K.  UHLKR. 

WORK  AMONG  THE  WORKINGWOMEN  IN  BALTIMORE.  By  Professor  H.  B. 
Adams. 

CHARITIES:  THE  RELATION  OF  THE  STATE,  THE  CITY,  AND  THE  INDI- 
VIDUAL TO  MODERN  PHILANTHROPIC  WORK.  By  Dr.  A.  G.  WARNER. 
law  AND  HISTORY.  By  Dr.  Walter  B.  Scaife. 

THE  NEEDS  OF  SELF-SUPPORTING  WOMEN.  By  Miss  CLARE  DE  GRAFFENREID. 
THE  ENOCH  PRATT  FREE  LIBRARY.  By  Dr.  LEWIS  H.  STEINER. 

EARLY  PRESBYTERIANISM  IN  MARYLAND.  By  Rev.  J.  W.  Mcilvain. 

THE  EDUCATIONAL  ASPECT  OF  THE  U.  S.  NATIONAL  MUSEUM.  By  Professor 
0.  T.  Mason. 

UNIVERSITY  EXTENSION  AND  THE  UNIVERSITY  OF  THE  FUTURE.  By  RICH- 
ARD G.  Moulton. 

the  PHILOSOPHY  OF  EDUCATION.  By  Dr.  William  T.  Harris. 

POPULAR  ELECTION  OF  U.  S.  SENATORS.  By  JOHN  HAYNES. 

A MEMORIAL  OF  LUCIUS  S.  MERRIAM.  By  J.  H.  Hollander  and  others. 

IS  HISTORY  PAST  POLITICS?  By  Professor  Herbert  B.  Adams. 


ANNUAL  SERIES,  1883-1895. 

SERIES  I.— LOCAL  INSTITUTIONS.  479  pp.  $4 .00. 

SERIES  II.— INSTITUTIONS  AND  ECONOMICS,  629  pp.  $4.00. 

SERIES  III MARYLAND,  VIRGINIA  AND  WASHINGTON.  595  pp.  $4.00. 

SERIES  IV.— MUNICIPAL  GOVERNMENT  AND  LAND  TENURE.  600  pp.  $3.50. 
SERIES  V.— MUNICIPAL  GOVERNMENT,  HISTORY  AND  POLITICS.  559  pp. 
$3-50. 

SERIES  VI.— THE  HISTORY  OF  CO-OPERATION  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES. 

540  pp.  $3.50. 

SERIES  VII.— SOCIAL  SCIENCE,  MUNICIPAL  AND  FEDERAL  GOVERNMENT. 
628  pp.  $3.50. 

SERIES  VIII.— HISTORY,  POLITICS,  AND  EDUCATION.  625  pp.  $3.50. 

SERIES  IX.— EDUCATION,  POLITICS,  AND  SOCIAL  SCIENCE.  640pp.  $3-50. 
SERIES  X.— CHURCH  AND  STATE,  COLUMBUS  AND  AMERICA.  630  pp.  $3.50. 
SERIES  XI,— LABOR,  SLAVERY,  AND  SELF-GOVERNMENT.  574pp.  $3.50. 
SERIES  XII. — INSTITUTIONAL  AND  ECONOMIC  HISTORY".  626  pp.  $3.50. 
SERIES  XIII.— SOUTH  CAROLINA,  MARYLAND,  AND  VIRGINIA.  606  pp.  $3.50. 
SERIES  XIV.— BALTIMORE,  SLAVERY  AND  CONSTITUTIONAL  HISTORY. 
588  pp.  $3.50. 

The  set  of  fourteen  series  is  now  offered,  uniformly  bound  in  cloth,  for  library  use,  for  $42.00. 
The  fourteen  series,  with  fourteen  extra  volumes,  twenty-eight  volumes  in  cloth,  for  $60.00. 


AIK  business  communications  should  be  addressed  to  The  Johns  Hopkins 
Press,  Baltimore,  Maryland.  Subscriptions  will  also  be  received,  or  single 


copies  furnished  by  any  of  the  followin; 

American 

New  York.— G.  P.  Putnam’s  Sons. 

Boston.— Damrell  & Upham  ; W.  B.  Clarke 
& Co . 

Providence.— Preston  & Rounds. 
Philadelphia.— Henry  T.  Coates  & Co. 

* European 

Paris.— A.  Hermann;  Em.  Terquem. 
Berlin.— Puttkammer  & Muhlbrecht; 

Mayer  & Muller. 

Leipzig.— E.  A.  Byockhaus. 


Agents  : 

Washington.— W.  H.  Lowdermilk  & Co.; 
Brentano’s. 

Chicago.— A.  C.  McClurg  & Co. 
Cincinnati.— Robert  Clarke  & Co. 
Indianapolis.— Bowen- Merrill  Co. 

Agents  : 

London.—  Kegan  Paul,  Trench,  Triibner  & 
Co.;  G.  P.  Putnam’s  Sons. 

Turin,  Florence,  and  Rome.— E.  Loescher, 


Extra  Volumes  of  Studies 

HISTORICAL  AND  POLITICAL  SCIENCE. 


The  Republic  Of  New  Haven.  By  Charles  H.  Levermore, 
Ph.  D.  342  pages.  8vo.  Cloth.  $2.00. 

Philadelphia,  1681-1887.  By  Edward  P.  Allison,  A.  M.,  and 

Boies  Penrose,  A.  B.  444  pages.  8vo.  Cloth.  $3.00. 

Baltimore  and  the  Nineteenth  of  April,  1861.  By  George 
William  Brown,  Chief  Judge  of  the  Supreme  Bench  of  Baltimore, 
and  Mayor  of  the  City  in  1861.  176  pages.  8vo.  Cloth.  $1.00. 

I/Ocal  Constitutional  History  of  the  United  States.  By 

George  E.  Howard,  Ph.  D.  Volume  1. — Development  of  the 
Township,  Hundred  and  Shire.  542  pages.  8vo.  Cloth.  $3.00. 
Volume  II. — In  preparation. 

The  Negro  in  Maryland.  By  Jeffrey  R.  Brackett,  Ph.  D, 
270  pages.  8vo.  Cloth.  $2.00. 

The  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States.  By  w.  w. 

Willoughby,  Ph.  D.  124  pages.  8vo.  Cloth.  $1.25. 

The  Intercourse  between  the  U.  S.  and  Japan.  By  inazo 
(Ota)  Nitobe,  Ph.  D.  198  pages.  8vo.  Cloth.  $1.25. 

State  and  Federal  Government  in  Switzerland.  By  John 
Martin  Vincent,  Ph.  D.  225  pages.  8vo.  Cloth.  $1.50. 
Spanish  Institutions  of  the  Southwest.  By  Frank  w. 

Blackmar,  Ph.  D.  380  pages.  8vo.  Cloth.  $2.00. 

An  Introduction  to  the  Study  of  the  Constitution.  By 
Morris  M.  Cohn.  250  pages.  8vo.  Cloth.  $1.50. 

The  Old  English  Manor.  By  C.  M.  Andrews,  Ph.  D.  280 
pages.  8vo.  Cloth.  $1.50. 

America:  Its  Geographical  History,  1492-1892.  By 

Walter  B.  Scaife,  Ph.  D.  176  pages.  8vo.  Cloth.  $1.50. 

Florentine  Fife  during  the  Renaissance.  By  Walter  b. 

Scaife,  Ph.  D.  256  pages.  8vo.  Cloth.  $1.50. 

The  Southern  Quakers  and  Slavery.  By  Stephen  b. Weeks, 
8vo.  Cloth.  $2.00. 

The  French  Revolution  as  seen  by  the  Americans  of 
the  Eighteenth  Century.  By  c.  D.  Hazen.  in  press. 


The  extra  volumes  are  sold  at  reduced  rates  to  regular  subscribers 
to  the  “Studies.” 


